Doc

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.

You people are welcome to believe whatever you need to about Cuomo and his motives, but his aggressive attitude toward these outdoor issues, and his sudden public proclamations on these issues certainly make one suspicious and even convinced of his motives given the huge problem that he has created with the hunting block of voters. I recognize a con when I see it. This guy is as slimy and slippery as they come and believe me he does not really need any apologists to be standing up for him. All these news articles and photo-ops relating to these issues are not simply a case where he is taking a passive reaction to an agency request. Business as usual you have me believe. Sorry, I occasionally am a bit gullible, but really not that gullible. But like I say, if it suits you all to believe what he is peddling, knock your socks off. Myself, I have to call a con when I see it.

Right .... And I assume that your average suburbanite landowner where most of the setback impact is likely to be felt does not subscribe to NYODN, this forum, or any of the other places that it was likely mentioned, which again was the point of my reply.

I just wish I had had my metal detector back then before the tore it all down.....lol. I always wonder what made a place like that become abandoned. The structure actually looked pretty decent .... No sway-backed roof lines or anything. Actually I have a heck of collection of old abandoned houses, but they are all on film. Like you, I always try to imagine the histories and the families and how things were back when these houses actually contained families. who are now long gone and completely forgotten. What makes this house so spectacular is the huge size of it. And of course the little one-room school house makes me one of the fast-vanishing generations to have actually attended one of these, so that picture has a special significance to me. This house was one of the 12 original schools in the town of Bristol and I was only there for one year before the state went to the centralized school system. Almost all of these schools are gone now. More history lost.

My kindergarten school. As I remember we had 8 grades in that building. Check out the plumbing out back ....lol- Somebody's home. It's gone now. Was along the Honeoye East Lake Road- Gannett Hill (Jump-Off) Ontario County- Powdermill Park fish hatchery-

We've got "Big Oil", and "Big Tobacco", and few other "bigs". Is it too soon to start calling the fracking guys "Big Gas"? Or how about the wind farms ... "Big Wind"?

Sorry, I missed it. And of course a thread or two on a hunting forum does not exactly do much good for all the other people that are impacted by this change....particularly those most effected the suburban homeowners, which of course was the point of my reply.

Yeah, I think you're guess of it being a bear is probably on the money. I say that not so much from the picture, but more based on the camera damage that you described and the way the whole set-up was disturbed. That all sounds like typical bear response to cameras that I have read about.

It all depends on what kind of a hunt you want. I encountered an article on the net that raised a few red flags for me. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/11/nyregion/ranch-hunting-one-person-s-sport-another-s-slaughter-business-grows-so-does.html It's only one article written by someone who may have some kind of agenda, I don't know. But I offer the link only because it does contain two aspects that are troubling for my kinds of hunting. One was that apparently they are guaranteed hunts and the other thing I found in the article was that their whole operation is less than 300 fenced acres. Both of those things would probably end any further investigation for me. But then that is just me and my personal version of hunting. Others may go there and have a great time. I would suggest that you first consider what you want out of your hunting, do a bunch more research on the place to make sure it meets your own personal needs, and then do what you want.

Ha, you make it sound like everytime the DEC has a comment period on any of their proposals, they publish a legal notice in all the papers. If they did that, I certainly missed it along with a whole lot of other folks too I imagine. I hate to tell you, but damn few people monitor the DEC web-site to see what they are up to. Maybe they are all busy monitoring all the other NYS agencies as well as chasing down all the legislative proposals in the works and just don't always get a chance to get around to the DEC .... lol. I wonder how many people even know that the DEC has put forth a 5 year plan? Probably none of those non-hunting suburbanites that are most effected by the setback part of the proposal. So if some of this crap happens to slip by almost all of the people in the state, I don't think they should really be all sitting around wringing their hands with guilt....lol. I want to meet the guy who is up on all the things we are supposed to have a personal responsibility to keep ourselves informed on. Chances are good that when I find someone who claims that they successfully do this, I will have also found a liar. If you devoted your entire waking hours to digging out all the agenda items of every state government agency (notice I didn't even mention Federal) you still could not come anywhere near discovering all the things that are going on in government that effect your life. It all reminds me of that other ridiculous statement that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Sure that's the theoretical way that the government gets themselves off the hook, but when you add in logic and practicality, you quickly realize just how stupid a statement of that sort really is. This other notion that it is a personal responsibility to keep yourself informed is equally ridiculous for anyone who actually takes the half-second to think about it. And as far as the surveys are concerned, if only a handful of hunters are surveyed, I guess the responses will likely be skewed in favor of only hunter wishes. Seems kind of logical doesn't it. And if you don't survey those that are most closely impacted (residents) then it shouldn't surprise anyone if the survey come out a bit skewed.

Look at the money they are saving (and making) by automating law enforcement. Just imagine how far they can take all this stuff as drone technology evolves and a wider and wider network of citizen surveillance cameras increase. Maybe some day we can get rid of traffic patrol personnel completely and have it all done with remote 24/7 surveillance. Add in a few well-camouflaged speed detection devices to catch speeders and a network of drones to control other offenses, and maybe some mandatory breathalyzer devices to control your starter and monitor drunk driving offenders, and before you know it we will all be safe .... right? How about transmitters to detect seat belt compliance and issue tickets via VIN numbers. It can all be done in such a way that we are never without proper monitoring.

Get used to it folks its just another step toward installing all kinds of remote enforcing of the government's control on its subjects. Seriously, there seems to be no limits on how, how much and what technology can be used against us. There's not even a whole lot of discussion about it. And every year the capabilities take huge leaps toward 100% surveillance. Cameras, drones, listening devices, who knows how many other devices that they are developing or have developed that we are unaware of. Yes we are heading for a remote controlled enforcement system in all kinds of areas of our lives.

No ... I didn't become aware of the comment phase until after it had concluded. Their fault -- my fault, I don't know, but I do know that I refuse to go off on a guilt trip over it....lol. Furthermore, I will guarantee those who are most effected by all of this (the average suburban homeowner) will never become aware of any of it until they try to lodge a complaint about some weird-looking guy sitting next to their house in camo and grease paint. And as a matter of fact, it appears that this is not an issue (weapons discharge distance from occupied buildings) where the DEC has the final say anyway. So comments to them probably will not really have that great an impact in the final outcome. Likely the proper place to lodge comments is with your state legislators. And relative to the surveys (which as usual I didn't receive) it sounds like they were only sent to hunters. The fact is that the setback issue is not just a hunter's issue. In fact it primarily affects homeowners, renters and tenants. Was there ever an attempt to sample opinion of the general public. Not that I have seen mentioned. So I suspect that once again the attempts at public input were skewed in a direction to get the answers that they wanted.

I'm trying to figure just where on the base of any cartridge there would be room for anymore markings. I mean there is the maker's mark, and the caliber already pre-stamped there. I would assume that the ID markings would probably be some kind of 6 or 7 digit number. That would really have to be a "micro" stamp, and would probably last for a few shots before it was destroyed. Imagine trying to get anything on the base of a .22 cartridge. And then there is the question of what kind of mechanism would force the imprint. Would they be relying on the recoil to force the stamping action? It's not real surprising that the technology can't yet be achieved. It is likely that it never will. And the big question is what kind of new evidence would this supply. Are they expecting that some number is going to supply the name and address of the shooter? What percent of the time would that ever actually be the case. It might supply the name and address to the guy who legally bought the gun in the first place .... the robbery victim who had it stolen from him. Now there's a real useful piece of evidence. No, it is obvious that this is just yet another harassment law applied against legitimate gun owners and manufacturers. It's starting to get real blatant now. It's more of an "in-your-face" kind of law than anything aimed at crime prevention.

Nobody has heard? I wonder how they handled the house/hunting setbacks with that hunt. Special exceptions to the law?

It is interesting when you stumble across old sugar-shacks in the middle of the woods. It makes you kind of look around and try to imagine what it was like back when guys were busy cutting up their supply of fire wood with the old buck-saw, and hauling gallon after gallon of sap by hand or horse-drawn skid, and the big boiling pans that looked nothing like the evaporators that everyone uses today. For a lot of farmers, syrup was just another farm product that they started off their spring activities with. Around the clock attention to the fire and the sap....just another annual farm activity.

You're right. Sometimes we have to rely on logic and good old "horse sense" when breaking new ground. I judge the examples of bad press and potential safety hazards that have already been pointed out to be not only gambles, but darn near a set of certainties. By the way, one of the risks that has been pointed out, but I sense underestimated and under-commented on, is that this proposed 50 yard setback not only applies to hunting situations, but also degrades the legal safeguards of set-back from those kids and adults who are target shooting in their suburban yards. What kind of humongous backstop would it require to stop an errant arrow touched off with mistakenly triggered release. Ah yes, the scenarios go on, and on, and on, and they are all very likely to occur as setbacks keep being diminished to a point of ineffectiveness.

All these changes within our lifetimes. In my case a mere 70 years with most of these changes accelerating in the more recent years. It doesn't look all that good for the future, does it? Anybody here thing that any of it will reverse? ..... lol. Not hardly.

I see large crowds of people standing out in all kinds of ugly weather protesting the Safe Act, and enough letter writing campaigns to get that freak Cuomo a bit concerned. I suspect that the gun advocacy organizations are experiencing huge spikes in membership. People are beginning to put their money, time and letter writing efforts, where their mouths are. I don't call any of that lazy, apathetic, or ignorant. In fact I have to wonder more about those who's first reaction is to cut and run. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the NYS liberals will not drive me from my home. And yes they will constantly have me in their face, and targeting them at the polls.

You haven't lived until you have encountered a real honest to goodness Japanese beetle infestation. They just flat out killed my two cherry trees before I had a chance to spray. They went from not being there at all to total defoliation in one day. I've never seen anything like it. They seemed to go right past the other trees just to get to the cherry leaves. About three years of spraying all the other trees, finally have gotten them down to the levels that can be controlled.