Doc

Well, I don't know. That triangular shaped barrel and the black color make the gun look evil. I think those features should be added to the "assault rifle" definition. And that bi-pod ...... oh my! Anybody got Cuomo's phone number?

I have been asking the question to the point where I have simply given up. Can anyone point out some language in the law that prohibits mail order ammo components. I can't find it. I believe that the Safe Act doesn't apply to ammo components. I hate to get too loud about this for fear that they will amend the law.

I understand how difficult it must be in some areas to keep the deer in check. The stupid things are even moving into some urban areas where even the proposed 50 yard setback change would not do the job. I was visiting some people down in Naples (and I do mean IN the village) and I saw 3 deer wandering through the yards. A 50 foot setback would not have allowed these deer to be shot. I saw the same thing in Brighton where the distance between houses is only about one driveway width. Herds of 7 or 8 were wandering around in the back yards. Should they make the setback 10 feet to make sure that every one of these deer are subject to harvest? Let's face it, there are going to be some deer that we simply will never be able to control unless we want to put up with some very dangerous and invasive rules changes. Where do we draw the line? I will reiterate what some body on here said....We will continue to push the envelope so far that whole townships will be passing ordinances that forbid any kind of archery to take place throughout the whole township. So where will that have gotten us?

So, about those apples ...... What is with the apples this year that they refused to drop. I can't remember other years when apples rotted on the trees rather than fall off. Especially with all the winds we have had. Is that normal? By the way .... Great pictures!

Basically, I rely on the DEC to supply technical biological information and regulations on these kinds of matters. I have no degrees in biology or wildlife management and it would be kind of arrogant or at the very least, pretentious to be thinking that I could do their job better than they can. As far as personal agendas, I guess I can't begin to imagine what that would be when it comes to the deer feeding positions and regulations that they have put in place. So I guess without a motive, I have no reason to suspect that their policy is covered by some secret hidden agenda. I do understand that the DEC is a political entity that truly does report directly to whoever the reigning governor happens to be. But there still has to be some kind of motive for the department to push any notions that are not according to the best game management principles that are available to them. That's not to say that I have never criticized them before, and some times in a quite vocal way. But at the end of the day I have to admit that I come with opinions and they come armed with facts. Game management is not my occupation and I have no formal training in that area.

I have often wondered the same thing. It almost seems that they kill more deer in their prevention programs than would have been lost to the disease if they had just left things alone.....lol. It seems to me that there is very little that is actually known about CWD even today. You seem to have all kinds of "experts" arguing about some of the fundamental issues such as how it is spread. I have yet to run across any info on disease rates in some of the more harder hit states. It always seems to be just a bunch of hand waving and frantic dire predictions of collapsing deer herds with no real numbers. So, has anyone actually seen infection rates in some of the more seriously effected western states? Does it even get to the level where the average hunter can even tell the difference? I mean we have all kinds of deer diseases that are at work all the time, but incidence rates are so small that we don't even notice the effects. Is CWD just another one of those? I'm not stating any conclusions, all I have is questions.

Wow! 1/4" peep. That's huge. But I am heading that way myself. I started out years ago with 1/8" and then recently went to 3/16".

How do you soften it up? ...... Heat? You know what sounds good would be the "softened" peanut butter over vanilla ice cream and then a pile of hot fudge. Kind of like a peanut butter cup melted over ice cream. Ha-ha .... Next time I feel like letting the old blood-sugar readings go to hell, I think I'll try that.

Sorry but the minute Cuomo inserted those proposals into his budget he took ownership of them because regardless of past history, he is the only one at the moment who is taking them forward legislatively. That's how it's been reported and those are the facts. The magazine articles simply are pointing out the fact that he is the one moving the issues forward. I understood it, and I can't understand why you are having such a hard time with it. Is it bad journalism to point out Cuomo's role and the fact that he is the one moving these proposals forward? You seem to think so. I do not. I have not seen any magazine quotes that state, insinuate or imply that Cuomo sat around and thought up these ideas by himself. Some how you have inserted that idea into these articles and can't get it out. And you are saying that your imaginings are somehow misinformation .... lol. I can't help you out there. But anyway, you seem to think the articles mis-stated something and it really seems to bother you. I guess I have no real problem with that if that's something that you need to believe. I was just curious as to how some of those notions got into your head. It's not a big deal.

Lol ..... I'll admit that it is primarily a privacy issue with me. I didn't spend all those years making a 70+ mile commute just to come out to my country home and see some guy squatting in the hedgerow grinning back at me at a mere 50 yards. And I also have a problem with the safety aspect of a 50 yard setback. If I were a suburbanite, effected by backyard archers, the notion of making it perfectly legal for neighbors to shoot within 50 yards of my house without any additional legal qualifications regarding back-stopping and direction of shooting would pretty much have me up in arms. Unless they do a lot better job of composing the setback law than they currently do, the proposal would allow somebody to shoot directly at your house with no requirement of adequate back-stopping. How the heck could any sane person suggest such a thing?

I will say that I have no personal knowledge of whether CWD is aggravated by single point feeding, but so long as the possibility logically exists, and the state biologists at the DEC appear to be convinced, I personally do not feel qualified to assume that they are wrong. So if they think that there is a connection between single point feeding and CWD, far be it for me to tell them they are wrong.

And again, perhaps the reason "There is no evidence of an increase of disease" might very well be that the DNR has not performed any studies of the effects of single point feeding, or they simply have not reported it to the public. If you want to argue the existence or impacts of rumen acidosis, the net is full of info on that subject or you can simply call the real experts on the subject, a DEC biologist. With your southern background, you may not be well versed on that situation. Here in NY because of the heavy contrasts of food resources due to the sharp and prolonged contrasts in weather, there is a distinct seasonal change in a deer's diet. I'm sure that the seasonal changes in rumen bacterial conditions is far more pronounced here than in places like NC where seasonal changes, and consequently food sources are not nearly as clearly defined. And the reason that I mentioned the thread drift was because after the 2nd sentence of your 2nd paragraph, the entire content was a defense of baiting from an ethical standpoint. This topic is not about whether baiting is "some magical feed pile that the deer just show up to and commit suicide". It is not about whether "deer will just come stand in it and wait for you to harvest". It is also not about whether or not "Killing a big buck on a corn pile is a rare event". In other words I do not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion of the ethics of baiting like I have seen so many others do. I know how easily that can happen. I am just asking for the courtesy of creating a separate thread to discuss that issue if you want to get into that aspect of baiting. It would probably be a popular discussion if past history is any indication.

First of all, I was unable to find any research that specifically evaluates the repercussions of baiting/feeding on NC deer herds. I certainly could have missed it, so if you have any credible sources of such information, a link would be appreciated. Secondly, I'm not sure how accurate it is to compare such things between two states of completely different climates and disease profiles. And third, your defense of baiting arguments are probably better done in a new separate thread rather than diverting this one.

It's an election year. Things will be getting very bizarre (even worse than usual). Don't forget that the DEC answers to Cuomo. They had better serve him well as his enthusiastic political accomplices. That is one of the things that make incumbent governors so difficult to unseat. They have all these neat expensive resources at their finger-tips. Your tax dollars at work...... as yet another Cuomo mouth-piece.

Even if that is so, what difference does that make? None of that has any bearing on showing that the articles are dealing with sensationalizing. It's simple news reporting. See, I simply don't get your point. You seem to be aggravated at some magazine editors for pointing out Cuomo's involvement and think that they are doing something other than reporting a news story. Would you have been happier if they had just suppressed that part of the news? Seriously, I don't get it.

The cost issue is an important one. I'm sure there a lot of people who think feeding is fun and a great way to save deer until they find out just how expensive it can be and then they just abruptly stop. I remember a story a decade or two ago about some little old lady in the Adirondacks who loved to feed her beautiful deer because she just simply liked to see them. It all seemed like a great idea until she found out that her fixed income couldn't withstand feeding this ever growing herd of new dependents. When the cash ran out, so did the feed. Well, guess what ..... she had conditioned the deer to pick up their free meal at her yard, and they remained congregated there for the remainder of the winter. It turned out to be an artificially created deer yard. By spring, the surrounding habitat had been totally destroyed through intense over-browsing and several deer were lost to starvation as a result of her "act of kindness". Sometimes the most innocent of do-gooder activities can wind up destroying far more animals than it saves.

As a point of correction, the original post properly labeled the death of the elk to be caused by rumen acidosis, and did not mention CWD at all. But I have to say that the jury is still out regarding CWD and a huge laundry list of other deer diseases that can be transmitted through body incidental contact with body wastes. Logic tells me that it is a much more danger in having deer drawn to a single pile of food as opposed to having deer dispersed throughout a food plot. However, I do have to agree that in such cases as a heavily bearing apple tree or acorn bearing oak tree there is little real difference. But, just because bad situations occur naturally with animals in the wild that does not justify adding to that unfortunate condition through widespread additional human intervention. And yes, there are other states that do not agree with our DEC on this issue or have simply decided that it is easier to avoid the feeding situation than to outlaw it. Also I agree that there are those that simply ignore the law, and we have no idea what the negative outcomes are that come from that illegal activity. We do know of this one result in PA. where it is also illegal to feed wildlife. In that case, they lost a very valuable developing resource because somebody else thought the PGC didn't know what they were talking about. Look, I am not advocating one way or the other, I am merely stating what the DEC is trying to tell us. They are the ones that we pay the big bucks to research and learn and earn their college degrees in real animal biology ..... not us. Certainly we can all have an opinion on anything we wish to, but the credibility on this has to reside in the offices of the DEC. I am pretty sure that they have no motive for banning the practice of deer feeding unless they really believe what they are saying about the dangers of artificially concentrating deer populations. Frankly, I don't always agree with their conclusions and methods, but in the end, I have to admit that they are the ones charged with doing the studies, drawing the conclusions, and setting the appropriate regulations ...... not me.

Peanut butter and orange marmalade ( did I spell that right?). Also, honey is great with peanut butter on toast or as a sandwich.

Frankly, I can think of nothing good that can come of concentrating deer through single point feeding. Whether you consider the hazards of incorrect feeding due to the ignorance of untrained individuals, or diseases borne of artificially induced close contact (not just limited to CWD), or just the destruction of natural habitat due to impracticality and failure to keep up with a proper and adequate feeding program.

I understand all that has gone on before, but right now the legislative impetus is contained in Cuomo's document. Therefore he is behind the proposals, plain and simple. Those who are suggesting that he is merely expressing opinions are ignoring that fact. He is an active pusher of those issues and has therefore taken ownership. And that is exactly what the articles that I have read are accurately portraying.

I have to admit that this activity does seem to contradict the language they used when they decided to protect the feral hogs from hunters. In fact, if I wanted to disperse any herds and drive them into nocturnal movements, chasing them around with helicopters might be one of the things that would come to mind.

Probably the most impressive part of that whole clip was the control and reasonableness that he displayed with his answer. We often feel the need to explode on someone asking those kinds of questions (kind of a Nugent reaction). I am willing to bet that his patient, reasoned, answer won over a whole lot more people in that room than if he had given into a rather natural instinct to lash out that most of us would react with.

Yes, Cuomo "is behind the proposals". It is his budget that is supplying the current proposals. They are not coming via the normal legislative route, but instead are coming via his executive budget activity. To me that constitutes more than just mere support. Let's face it, he is not just simply issuing and opinion of support. He has taken an activist stance and has come up with the verbiage to push it forward. Yeah, I think he owns the issue now.

Well, that explains why you are so free with the privacy rights of others. You'll never have anybody move in that close to your cabin, so the hell with everybody else. Good attitude.

While I have enough land to insulate myself from this kind of invasive activity, I am able to put myself in the position of some suburbanites who may have to put up with some unwelcome intrusions. We all have the right to a certain amount of privacy whether we are hunters or not. And we are not really going to be making any friends by imposing ourselves on others. That really shouldn't be a real difficult concept to understand. Personally, I have no desire or need to hunt in places where I can listen to every word of somebody's arguments, or keep up with my favorite TV programs by getting myself all cozy with my neighbor. That's not "taking the anti hunters side, that is just common respect for the privacy of others. And from the other side of the situation, unless you were a close friend or relative, there is no way I would agree to have somebody hunkered down 50 yards from my house either. That's simply ridiculous. And the accidental release comment was regarding backyard practice that can take place by anyone....experienced shooters, kids just fooling around, someone who has a care about safety and those that don't, those that might have adequate backstopping and those that have none. And yes, that arrow does not always go where we plan, and those that laugh about the possibilities of accidental releases and other types of safety issues are precisely the reason I believe that 50 yards is way too close and they provide all the reason I need to oppose a setback reduced to 50 yards.