Doc

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.

Yeah and people ride down the road swerving all over the place ignoring texting and cell-phone laws. They don't wear seat belts. They speed. There probably is not a law that hasn't been broke. So what? And I love all these statistical statements posed as fact. The real fact is that 50 yards is simply too darned close to be legally able to shoot at or around someone's house or even yard without their permission. It completely amazes me that anyone would even argue that point.

This is something else to keep in mind. This change to a 50 yard setback may very well force entire villages and townships and such to now implement local total exclusions of archery activity which could take in even areas that are currently in conformance with the 500' rule.

No I don't think you have anything to worry about there. I don't think that there is anybody that matters that can't separate out the issues from their hatred of Cuomo. His support of anything that has to do with sportsmen and women is very transparent. Almost comically so.

You maybe right. But then you may be wrong. If you ever find where somebody has taken such a poll, let us know. I will say this.... at least today if a neighbor looks over and sees somebody standing 50 yards away pointing their bow at an un-backstopped target that is nicely lined up with his livingroom window, he at least has some legal recourse to put a stop to it.

You know, if the gun manufacturers had only painted the AR-style rifles pink and put little teddy-bear decals on them, there would never have been any problem.

You may be right. But then, you may be wrong ..... lol.

Ha-ha .... So, I see this crossbow thread is taking the usual direction. Everybody having fun yet? ..... lol.

Backyard target practice may very well be the worst aspect of this whole set-back change proposal.

So is that a bow or a slingshot?.....lol

I understand what is trying to be achieved with this set-back proposal. The DEC is trying to control populations that are currently uncontrollable. They need to be able to access and allow hunting in areas where human population density makes it nearly impossible. But there is a problem when the only methods proposed run smack into the face of property owners rights and expectations of privacy and safety. I know which side of those two choices I come down on. There is also another aspect to it all that involves safety. Even current setback laws have left out verbiage regarding shooting at houses, or any regard to back-stopping, or neighbors going about their activities in the path of bow-shots (or gunshots for that matter). So, what is the solution? Well first of all, the 50 yard setback was a bit too aggressive. 100 yards is an improvement that still maintains elements of safety and privacy. Also, the addition of language prohibiting shooting directly at houses (which doesn't exist in any of the current setback laws). There also needs to be some words regarding adequate back-stopping. There also needs to be some requirement that retrieval permissions be granted for at least some minimal distance around a stand. That's not a cure-all, but it requires people to at least be aware of retrieval problems and take some steps toward alleviating that concern. No, none of this is a perfect solution, but at least something reasonable would be in place to address the concerns, rather than simply telling people that they can sit next to their neighbors house and indiscriminately shoot in any direction they want without concern for where the arrow is going to go.

I think the whole point of the discussion has sailed right over your head. Nobody is arguing the process, or where these proposals came from. The question was about the accuracy in the news coverage.

You know, I have yet to hear anyone talk about crossbows in small game season. I suspect everyone is assuming that small game is just a given. But I cannot tell you if small game is included in any of the proposals.

Well, that's a new one. I have yet to read or hear one person yet that has said they are against either of these proposals simply because Cuomo is for it. Did I miss something here? Where did that come from?

It is his budget. He is the author. No one else had the language added to that 2014 budget for these proposals so I have no idea how you can say that he inserted nothing. It is his document. And when I say he did all these things I am allowing that he has a staff that he directs to actually come up with the words and details. So when somebody reports that he supports and in fact is backing these proposals, I completely agree with them ..... he is! As far as the misinformation, I have no clue what the heck you are talking about. If you are trying to paint his insertion of these proposals and resources into his budget as mis-information, I'm not buying it. That is exactly what he is doing. It seems like you are getting all excited about nothing. At least that's the way it looks with what you have included in your replies. So what is your version of truth that has so badly been twisted by these articles? Hey, I'm just trying to help you sleep better at night ... lol.

Seriously? .... Are you guys really going to fight this battle all over again....lol. My gosh you guys really are getting bored. What we need is some energetic soul to go back into the archives and cut and paste all those years of crap and repost it here. There's not a single point that hasn't been repeated at least a couple dozen times.

Point #1 So, I guess the answer is to simply force them to put up with us. I think not. Point #2 These are a few of the many reasons to stay the heck out of these urban and suburban areas completely and I can think of a pile more of them. Who needs that kind of grief and opportunities for conflict? Point #3 I definitely hope that they will not create another book of regulations as to which setbacks apply where. we don't need that kind of confusion added on. Pick one and use it everywhere. Point #4 I believe they went a lot farther than they had to, or should have. 100 yards would be a whole lot less obtrusive.

Are those kinds of pills blue? I've never actually seen one .... lol. An August birth? That is one freaky thing. Somebody got their calendar messed up.

I am trying to stay away from those more incendiary terms .... lol. But I did want to make the point that this law is aimed at trying to force our way into people's privacy where we cannot seem to gain access through willful permission. I think that's a point that people are missing or purposely ignoring. And for those that have interest in the P.R. aspects to our hunting acceptance, the pitfalls may be obvious.