Doc

Chances are pretty good that since he's living around (under) your front step, he just may find a way inside. How do you feel about him going for the nice warm body heat in your bed .... lol. Just something to think about tonight. Another nice thought is that this happy slithering house-mate may be looking for a nice place to lay eggs and raise a nice pile of baby snakes. But anyway by way of answering your original question, I am pretty sure that that kind of snake is a disgusting slithering "yuck" snake. The day before yesterday, I came across a 5' black snake that was heading into my barn. He was laying right out in the open but I still didn't see him intil I was right next to him. Naturally, I screamed like a little girl .... lol. After I calmed down a bit, we both went on our own separate ways. The black snake is the only one that I actually like to see around, I just don't like almost stepping on them.

There is a law coming our way that will require background checks prior to ammunition sales .... right? That may put an end to these wild-catters reselling ammo when they don't have the capability of performing back-ground checks. Could be that a lot of these guys will get stuck with a lot of ammo that they cannot sell without resorting to illegal black-market methods.

Many of the recent "rifle" counties are still relatively new. I have to believe that many hunters in those areas may not yet have actually ditched their prize shotgun and went out to spend the big-bucks for a new deer rifle. So, we may not have actually seen any meaningful numbers regarding how rifles have impacted hunting safety in these more population dense areas. In fact even at it's worse, hunting fatalities in NYS have been on the decline, so there won't be a whole lot of data points available for any meaningful comparative stats until quite a few years go by. I am not going to make any predictions. There are logical pros and cons regarding the wide-spread use of rifles in deer season, and it will take a long time before the point is made one way or the other. Regarding deer poaching in these new rifle counties, I see no logical reason that anything new will be happening. My thought is that if someone is going to take an illegal deer illegally, they probably are not one to worry whether they are using a legal weapon or not. If poachers want to use rifles instead of shotguns, they probably are already doing so with or without a rifle bill being passed. My take on the whole issue is to try it out and let's see what really happens rather than trying to guess. Many of these rifle laws have a sunset clause attached that will be addressed after the law has been in effect for a year. That is the case with the Ontario County version. I doubt that 1 year is an adequate test that will yield any meaningful stats, but I am certain that at anytime it can be proven that rifles are a problem, there are plenty of people who will happily offer up legislation that will reverse the new law. Lets check it out and see what happens.

How many of those things does it take to make a meal? They look awful small to me.

Find the bill number and check the progress at this site: http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi

I didn't realize that they would do that. Could that cause a fire hazard?

It is currently sitting in the Environmental Conservation Committee in the Assembly. It has gone through the Senate. Once it comes out of committee and is passed by the Assembly (which should not be a problem), it goes to the Governor, and that shouldn't be a problem there either. The problem is figuring out when it will come out of committee for action. STATUS: S3929 NOZZOLIO Same as A 5574 Kolb Environmental Conservation Law TITLE....Authorizes hunting in the county of Ontario until October 1, 2015 02/27/13 REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 03/12/13 1ST REPORT CAL.184 03/13/13 2ND REPORT CAL. 03/14/13 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 04/23/13 PASSED SENATE 04/23/13 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY 04/24/13 referred to environmental conservation

Congratulations! I love the fact that it has taken the position of honor in the garage. LOL .... the family car probably got booted out of the garage to make room for the new tractor. So what are some of the specs on the new purchase?

It passed what? We know it passed with the Board of Supervisors. From there it has to go through the Senate and then get moved to the Assembly, and then it goes to the Governor. Has it passed all those steps?

Ok, that is step #1 and what has become the easiest step for those of us in Ontario County. Our experience has been that after it leaves the Board of Supervisors, weird things begin to happen. We may have it licked this time around. It currently has passed the Senate and is sitting in committee in the Assembly and has been there quite a while. Our process has left the Board three times and has covered a span of three years. I hope you guys in Livingston County have much better luck with your rifle bill than we have.

I thought that one time a while ago, somebody coughed up a DEC number for multiple buck harvests. I'm not sure how far back in the archives one would have to look, but somebody must have that number. Personally, I believe it's been one heck of a long time since I have taken more than 1 buck, and I don't really know anyone else that has ever mentioned doing it. Of all the schemes that have been mentioned, I suspect that a one-buck limit would be the easiest to swallow, but probably the least significant in terms of actual buck harvest numbers.

Now if you really want to forage around for your own food, there are an amazing array of edibles that crawl around under rocks and logs. Even a good old ant-hill can supply all kinds of protien, and it doesn't cost you a cent......lol. I can remember how wasteful I was when I ran my trapline and threw all that muskrat, mink, beaver, racoon, possums, skunks, and fox meat away. Yum!!! I could have had months of free meat. Actually, I guess I really do prefer the grocery market.

You want to compare bad luck??? Yours is definitely more expensive, but let me tell you about something that simply has to chalked up to extremely unlikely bad luck. Check this out. First of all, there is no real reason for a hornet to be inside the house. There is no real reason for it to be in the bedroom. There is no real reason for it to be on my bed. I got into the bed and reached over to pull the covers over me. There really was no reason for my hand to glom onto that hornet along with the blankets. Well guess what. That hornet did find it's way into the house. Out of the whole house he decided to head back into the bedroom. Out of the whole bedroom, he decided to walk around on the bed. Out of the whole surface of the bed he decided to stand exactly where I would put my hand to grab the covers. You talk about a series of completely unlikely events, that all has to take the cake. Well, yes the only thing that was not very strange or surprising was that a hornet that was being grabbed at would sting its attacker. Now there is some bad luck!

What? ... cut government handouts and freebies? Are you kidding? How would they buy the votes that get them re-elected? No, this is much better. Make a big show about being tax-free, and then charge more taxes to the rest of the state to make up for the revenue loss. Heck with this brilliant ploy, they probably will even figure out how to spend even more.

Absolutely. There is no point to staying if your wind is drifting right into the area that you are expecting the deer to come from. I get all nervous and jerky if there is just one brief reversal of wind direction that heads out toward where I am looking for the deer to come from. In fact the question that always comes up in my mind is just how much damage has been done by that one contrary back blast of wind that has carried scent molecules out across the trail. I know that scent trails are made by the adherrence of scent molecules to the ground and bushes and weeds, etc. Perhaps this accounts for those reports of deer having a sixth sense. maybe it's their sense of smell detecting your scent molecules from that forgotten isolated moment of back-flo that dispersed scent molecules in an area that you didn't realize. Anyway, back to your question ..... if you know that your wind direction has changed and any incoming deer is likely to encounter your scent, there is no point to educating the deer in your area as to your presence and the location of your stand. Better you should get the heck out of there and hope that you haven't stunk things up already.

I think that last sentence in parenthesis gives a lot of insight into why there are so many different views or levels of acceptance for any of these restrictive proposals. There are so many different levels of opportunities for hunters around the state. There are also differences in abilities from one hunter to the next. While one guy may be in an area where hunting is pretty much a piece-of-cake, or he may be of an experience and skill level that makes the activity seem relatively easy, the next guy may be from an area that is quite deprived of opportunity, or he may be a relative newcomer to the sport. So while some of us can come up with restrictions about as fast as our imaginations can work, and compile a list of regulations designed to handicap hunters in every imagineable way, it may not always be all that obvious to us that there are others in other parts of the state that may simply be frustrated right out of the activity by the addition of prohibitive new laws and restrictions. That is one reason why I tend to not be in favor of statewide restrictions that totally disregard the conditions of habitat or deer numbers or conflicts with other regulations. I think that more thought and better definition of criteria as to the selections of where these ideas are put into law need to occur before anything is even considered for being put into law. This idea of simply drawing a restriction out of a hat and applying it across the state, without any particular in-depth studies as to whether they are appropriate, is a concept that I am completely against but something I seem to hear more and more of every year.

There is something about continually restricting the harvests that we find acceptable that kind of bothers me. It seems that everytime this subject comes up many are trying to impress everyone else by saying how strict their rules of acceptance are. They also intend to impress with statements that support even further restrictions that everyone else must abide by. I know that everyone has their own reasons and standards for their hunting, and I feel real uncomfortable trying to get laws passed that would force my beliefs on others. In this day of shrinking hunter populations, I really wonder about the advisability of harrassing the hunters that we still have. That harrassment can come either through new restrictive laws, or the constant harping, and criticizing, and measuring, and negative comments, about the harvest that other have chosen. My position is to congratulate a hunter that has taken a deer ..... big doe, little doe, big buck or small buck. I take no pleasure in watching his smile of pride disappear as I criticize the animal that he has chosen to taken. Maybe others don't have that same attitude and enjoy playing the role of the spoiler. Maybe it makes them feel better to draw comparisons between what they take and what other choose to take, I don't know. But as far as I am concerned, I will set my own limits and standards, and it doesn't bother me that others do the same. And I don't feel that I really need any new laws to force others to believe the way I do.

See ....... The lunacy never ends. This country is doomed.

Well, that's good that they have finally put the issue before the legislators. Now the proponents and opponents of the concept can vent their opinions to their legislators instead of filling pages and pages in the internet forums. ............Yeah right ... like that's going to happen ... lol.

Checked on it this morning: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATUS: S3929 NOZZOLIO Same as A 5574 Kolb Environmental Conservation Law TITLE....Authorizes hunting in the county of Ontario until October 1, 2015 02/27/13 REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 03/12/13 1ST REPORT CAL.184 03/13/13 2ND REPORT CAL. 03/14/13 ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 04/23/13 PASSED SENATE 04/23/13 DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY 04/24/13 referred to environmental conservation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It seems like it's been stuck there for quite a long time now.

Somewhere I read that there are significant numbers of people joining the ranks of hunters because they are getting sold on the health aspects of wild game, and also the belief that they should learn a bit more self-sufficiency regarding their diet. Many of these people are coming from odd places such as the more liberal tree-hugging crowd who have had an epiphany about this world and their proper place in it. I tend to encourage anyone who has had this kind of sudden revelation, but it does them no service to sugar-coat the hunting activity. I am awfully glad that I don't have to feed my family with what I get from hunting season. It makes a good supplement, but as a primary source of protien, it just ain't happening. Also, when looking at dollar per pound, wild game is not what I would call "cheap". If I amortize what I spend on weapons, ammo, hours (if you count your time as worth anything), occasional transportation, accessories, special clothing, and for some people .... camps, land, ATVs, etc., etc., the cost per pound is huge. So yes, if a person feels a need to get involved in the elements and needs of nature and the way they fit into it all, they are probably looking at it all in a very realistic way. If you are looking at it as a way to build your family budget around and save gobs of money, it seldom works out that way.

Sure could use a bit more heat, but so far everything is looking good and progressing in an acceptable rate. I wish I could get out there to take care of some of the weeds before they get to be a problem, but that might be a pretty mucky activity .... lol.

Yup, in a perfect world, all this rain could be spread out over a more convenient time frame. In my own personal situation, it is kind of nice not to be worrying about potential well problems. However, it has been so damned unrelenting, that lawn mowing and garden weeding has now become a problem. The good news is that I have not been plagued with a flooded driveway as has been the situation in many other years. So basically, I guess I am not ready to complain ...... yet.

I guess I just get tired of watching people go all ga-ga over every article that comes out with some astounding claim. It seems that the mere mention of a "study" makes people automatically assume validity and god-like truth. And then every so often a study like this one comes along that is so completely difficult to swallow as to put a real strain of the credibility. I do not afford researchers a quality of infallibility and I do believe the term "expert" gets assigned all too easily. I do not worship them as being some kind of keepers of the truth. And I think there is plenty of reason to doubt and question their findings and even occasionally their motives. And guess what .... Even their own colleagues often question those same things and on many occasions reverse the findings. So at times I set my gullibility aside and do question those studies that seem to be particularly weird to me. That's probably something we all should occasionally do.

Here is another one of those "studies" that I think is completely over-exaggerated. Yes, if an animal urinates directly on a plant, maybe it will die ..... maybe. But, let's get real. How much actual coverage does deer urine actually achieve. Just how significant is the result? I guess I just have a naturally suspicious mind, but I hate to see everyone get all excited just because somebody assigns the word "study" to some of these things. Most likely they penned up some deer and found that most of the vegetation in the pen disappeared. But then, nature's deer herd doesn't live in a pen do they? It appears that some of these researchers have to come up with some kind of outrageous findings in order to get their allotment of grant money for the following year. This is likely another case of don't believe everything that the "experts" and "researchers" are peddling. I think there is plenty of reason to suspect this "study".