Doc

Again, if people could be trained in the biological needs of deer, perhaps the DEC might not have such a negative view of the practice of feeding deer. But that doesn't happen and won't happen, and in fact can't be done in a practical sense. As far as deer eating corn in the fall (hunting season), that is normal for that time of year. That is a far different scenario than what they are eating right now in the dead of winter and how their gut is conditioned now. That is the problem. There doesn't seem to be a recognition of how dramatically deer diets change as the winter season advances. And even when told, it still goes over people's heads...... hence the "no feeding" law.

Let's hope that they do not break it down as fine as you are describing. But, I certainly wouldn't put it past them to make it just as confusing and obtuse as possible. They are known for that. But really, game laws need simplification rather than more complexity. And let's face it if you can get the densely populated urban and suburban (the hotbed of anti-hunting) residents to put up with this nonsense, you might as well make it a statewide fiasco while they are at it.

I really don't see anything that falls into the category of sensationalizing in any of the articles that cover this story. The facts are correct, and whether or not this is a repeat action by Cuomo, the story and actions are still factual. Plus, if these provisions were indeed stripped from his last budget, it is likely that he used them as throw-away issues to advance the budget. He certainly has a lot more motivation to not be quite as free with them this year. Frankly, I do think it is a done-deal.

I find it kind of funny to watch people who think our 1000' driveway is some kind of single lane town road. They finally get to a point where they can see the house and then just stop, apparently sitting there pondering what they should do now. They never finish their journey or they would discover a nice circle to get them pointed back out. Instead they start the process of turning around in the width of a single lane. I haven't had anyone go off the driveway and into the ditch yet, but it likely will happen one of these times. I often wonder just what is going through their heads that would make them even want to come up there. It's a well-maintained driveway, but it really doesn't look like any kind of public road. But anyway, so far it has not really caused any problems ...... yet.

And there is the problem. The average person interested in feeding deer has absolutely no idea of what or how or any clue about the consequences of their ignorance. Frankly, I doubt that the number of people who have even heard the term "rumen Acidosis" would even make it to 1% of the population that would engage in feeding activities. There are other responsibilities that come with feeding wildlife where ignorance can spell tragedy for the very animals that they are trying to help. Attempting to monitor and control the use of unwise feeding procedures is certainly an impossible activity for the DEC, and I can well understand why they decided that eliminating the activity entirely is a much smarter way to go. But anyway, I thought this article added yet one more layer to all the reasons that the DEC decided to ban deer feeding, and hope you all found it interesting. Sorry I couldn't supply a link to the entire article. There were a few other things that were discussed in there too.

Those incidents have been the excuse for all kinds of weird invasive changes. I'm beginning to think doctors should have badges if they are to be considered another branch of law enforcement. Perhaps the Hippocratic oath should be modified a bit to include some of the cop's oath.....lol.

While I never realized that the little dictator had the power to do so, it appears that he can make such changes simply by decree in his budget. It makes you wonder just how far those "executive budget powers" extend. How something like this can be dictated as a matter of "budget powers" is beyond me. But anyway, Grow is absolutely correct. It has been decreed and with the passage of the budget, all of this stuff will become finalized. I don't know whether there is any other step in the process, but I would say from the attached article it appears not : https://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/50260/Cuomo-Seeks-Hunting-Regulation-Changes-Deer-Hunting-Areas-May-Open-Up "While the local deer debate rages on, Governor Andrew Cuomo has used his executive budget powers to potentially loosen hunting restrictions statewide—a move his office is touting as a direct countermeasure to the spiking deer population. As an amendment to the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, Gov. Cuomo’s budget seeks to officially allow the use of crossbows for the hunting of deer and bear. In addition, the budget would allow the use of either a long bow or a crossbow at a distance of 150 feet or more from any building—a far cry from the current 500-foot setback."

Oh come-on....... Are you serious? ...... Double charged? How the heck does that happen? I have to say that ever since I went through that fiasco of trying to exchange ammo with the visibly mangled cases (I took a horrible beating on that one), My confidence in Winchester ammo has gone down the drain. I was amazed that such stuff could get through the quality control. And yet it did. Now they are creating unsafe loads? I don't know what has happened to them, but it certainly isn't good.

So, exactly when did doctors become members of law enforcement? I think they have an important enough job without getting themselves involved in trying to be confidential street informants. This idea that they should become intimate members of each patient's household and how they conduct their lives seems to me to be just a bit invasive whether it is actually mandated by law, or a position that they have voluntarily inserted themselves into. I have never been asked about firearms in the house, and I wouldn't expect to be. I believe that if I were asked about it, I would insist that office conversations be limited to the medical business that I am paying them for.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll set the recorder.

Doctors can ask any kind of invasive questions that they want, but it is still up to the patient to answer or not. After all, the doctor is the employee in these cases, not the boss. In the case of the original post however, the right of a teacher to weave their politics into the curriculum does not exist. And all the advice to make a big deal out of such offenses are spot on. Right quickly, as much of an example as possible should be made of those that take those kinds of liberties with the minds of minors.

I wonder how many of the legislators who voted for that Safe Act have since had a change of heart now that they see that the bitter resentment over that vote has not died down. On the other side of the coin, I wonder how many of these spineless wimps are still terrified of Boss Cuomo and his power.

I found an article in the Sunday paper that talked about one of the reasons that the DEC is against feeding deer. The lead-off incident was actually about a dead 6 by 7 bull elk found dead in Elk County, PA. last month, the apparent victim of winter wildlife feeding. Test results returned last week cited rumen acidosis as the cause of death. This condition in wild animals is often linked to supplemental feeding by humans. Rumen acidosis is brought on by the sudden introduction of carbohydrates, usually grain and often corn, to an animal's diet. The diets of wild deer and elk change throughout the year. The bacteria in their gut adjusts to accommodate those changes. However, if their diets change suddenly rather than gradually their bodies are unable to digest the newly introduced food. If they eat enough of that food it can kill them. There were a lot of other reasons for not feeding wildlife discussed also in this article, but most of those we have already talked about. I am still looking for the on-line address of the article, but right now their search engine is not responding. If I can get it I will post it. It was a very interesting article. Paper: Canandaigua Daily Messenger Title of article: "Soft hearts can cause wildlife tragedies"

Check out any well-stocked newsstand. A lot of places sell it off the rack. And by the way, congratulations. Maybe someday you can fill us in on the details of each hunt.

Next time everyone gets a chance to get onto a measured range, just take a look at what 50 yards really looks like. Those that regularly shoot from that distance, should try to think back to what that sight picture looks like. Any reasonable person pretty much has to admit that that is entirely too close for hunting activity. And then also if you have ever had an accidental release triggering, try to remember just where the arrow wound up relative to where you intended it to. At some point it would be interesting to her a little common sense applied to this issue.

It was great and posted just at the right time. I'm wacked out with cabin fever, and a nice reminder of the past season was just what I needed.

Well, it's just some more crap that we have to put up with for living in this corner of the country. However, I can handle it a lot more than hurricanes, earthquakes and tornados. Spring is getting closer every day. Hang in there.

Wind farms and hydro-fracking are two very high-visibility issues. These are things that have been heavily discussed complete with mainstream media attention. There also are some very vocal organizations that keep those issues in front of the general public. I doubt there are very many people that have not at least heard the terms fracking and wind farms, and even heard some pro and con discussions in the news or just in conversations with acquaintances. They are not just a minor item buried in the middle of a 5-year game management plan. In fact, if you were to attend every town and county meeting, you would still be unlikely to have heard about a proposed hunting set-back change. So, how much of a say do you really have in issues that are never presented to you? A few pages ago I stated that for many suburban dwellers the first exposure they will ever have to this proposed rule change will be when they are on the phone with the cops reporting some guy in camo and grease-paint hunkered down in the hedgerow grinning back at them. No, they will not have had any say in the issue nor could they have if they wanted to. There is something very wrong in that.

I'm thinking mainstream media would have been a good start. I'm not saying that that would catch 100% of the non-hunting publics attention, but if the DEC is going to play the role and try to put on a façade that you are really interested in receiving input from the entire public (especially on matters that directly impact them), it would be good to make a good-faith effort to do so. What they do with the information is up to them, but at least the info would be out there as to what is being proposed for their neighborhoods. Do they even care? I suspect they do, but can't say with certainty. But of course without the issue even being brought to their attention, I guess we may never know.

Then I don't know what the discussion is all about because while I may not have used the term "grandstanding", that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread. As far as Cuomo having any "original" ideas on any of these subjects, who the hell ever said that his thoughts were original? I certainly didn't, and I don't recall a reply anywhere on here that even hinted that any of these issues involved original input from him. So basically we have just spent 3 or 4 pages of forum space arguing from the same side.....lol.

I explained what outreach in total that they made with quotes from their own website. I can see that I am wasting my time only to have you not read it or simply ignore it. I believe I have better things to do ..... lol. Moving on .......

Who did you order from?

Simply referring to your own words: "The surveys, as we beat to death already, are of a sample of people, which in theory represent the majority." If you are now admitting that all of the so-called search for public input and comment were aimed strictly at hunters and not the residents who are the actual people effected by the setback provision of their plan, then I guess we are completely in agreement and that is all that I have been saying repeatedly over and over and over and over.

You sure that wasn't up in the Adirondacks somewhere? It looks just like the one I saw up there except the one that I saw was black.

Let me point out a direct quote from the DEC's own page. http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/77233.html "It then incorporated a public attitudes survey of 5,000 hunters before the drafting of the plan began." Notice that they specifically said they surveyed hunters .... no mention of the people that are actually impacted by the change (residents). So, when you say that the surveys represent the majority of the people, that statement does not ring true with the DEC's own words. That is what I have already said no less than 4 times already and you seem to want to contradict that. I can only rely on the DEC's own words regarding the ground-rules for their survey strategy which maybe has a bit more credibility when it comes to how the surveys were conducted. What are you basing your comments on? So in addition to the biased 5000 surveys sent out only to hunters, they did hold "a series of 20 statewide meetings that drew over 1,000 participants". Good try, but hardly reaching the attention of very many people. I'm willing to bet that almost all, if not in fact all of those participants were hunters. I am not saying that they didn't do their practical best to involve the people (at least the hunting population), but to try to represent that this process gathered the comments or even the attention of anything near the majority of people on any of these issues is just not being honest. And that is all that I have been saying over and over, and most likely will not be repeating again.