Doc

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.

Basically, this is what the NRA-ILA has to say on the subject: "Anti-gun treaty proponents continue to mislead the public, claiming the treaty would have no impact on American gun owners. That's a bald-faced lie. For example, the most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S." Basically, it is a restriction on the free and uninhibited commercial flow of firearms which constitutes the availability of gun control on US citizens from entities outside our borders. That does in effect neuter the 2nd Amendment, taking the issue out of U.S. control and putting it in the hands of foreign entities.

The world can be a cruel place ..... lol.

Well then, there you go ..... problem solved no need to change anything.

Some more random photos: Found this old cemetery when I was hiking around the valley. This is only a part of a rather large abandoned cemetery. I sent a bunch of these pictures to the town webmaster and explained that the cemetery contained the remains of the town founders. It wasn't long after the pictures were posted that that there was a restoration. For those of you that think your contributions and lives will be forever remembered ...... not really .... lol- I never pass up a falls without a picture or two- Taughannock Falls in the Town of Ulysses. Had to look up how to spell it, and I don't have a clue how to pronounce it-

I have no problem with trying to get rid of New York's contribution to this list (Schumer & Gillibrand). I don't really hold out too much hope though.

I understand the purpose of this law. I know they have all kinds of problems controlling urban and suburban deer populations. The damned deer are just too adaptable. I'll tell you what would be a good compromise. For get the 150' change. How about you can hunt with a bow as close to occupied buildings as you want as long as you have obtained written permission. That way you could sit on some patio furniture on somebody's deck if that's what turns you on, but it would only be in cases where the people affected were in agreement. But keep the 500' rule in effect where permission is not granted.

As far as my current job of enjoying retirement, this cold weather really sucks. Too bad I'm not into ice fishing. I don't understand how those guys that have to repair damaged electrical, phone and cable lines can stand it. I mean the uglier the weather, the more likely they will be required to be out in it. But then those guys that are laying down asphalt in the dead of summer don't have it all so nice either.