Doc

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about.

That's what I think will happen. I don't think they saw the action by the fed coming. This now puts a very public aspect to their little light-fingered scheme. I don't think they have much choice but to quietly close up the trap-door to the funds and satisfy the original intent of the federal program. Frankly I believe they cannot run the DEC without those funds and shutting down the DEC is not an option. In other words, if they don't make things right, things will get very messy. It's a political nightmare. They have to make it right ...... or at least I hope that's the way it all works out.

This whole part of the discussion about hunting in suburbia is a subject that really poses some potential sticky situations. To me it transcends the distance issue and the permission stuff and gets involved with whether I would ever want to to do it in the first place for all kinds of reasons. I can picture situations where some bloody old deer drops dead in some kid's sand-box, or a school yard, or creates some kind of spectacle on the streets or sidewalks. What the heck.....how do you even handle the gutting situation without looking like some kind of crazed slasher to the housewives and kids and for that matter, the new breed of neutered suburban male. The whole thing just sounds like an activity that has a high probability of placing the hunter in a very public and unpopular situation. It sure wouldn't be for me no matter how the law was changed.

If some hunters are hypnotized by what they see on TV and they decide to try to increase their odds of bagging one of those monsters by excluding other hunters, or doing anything else within the law to attract and hold deer, that is indeed their right as property owners or lease holders. We may not like it, but there is no choice but to get used to it as more and more hunters put their money and labor where their mouth is. I really hate to see hunting go that way, but the TV shows have really had their influence. Hunters dreaming of monster bucks have taken to pursuing the biggest bucks that money can buy. Deer farming techniques, fencing, and the best hunting technology that money can buy, along with any other things that the law allows are all being gobbled up by antler crazed hunters/landowners. It's just the way hunting is going. It is all spurred on by the selling of deer hunting by TV programming, all subsidized by the sporting equipment manufacturers through advertising. And it's all legal and increasingly accepted and even expected. Hey, things change ..... not always for the better but evolution happens even in our traditional and cultural activities. So we can complain about it all we want, but in the end, anyone who believes in the rights of private ownership of property (as limited as that term really is), and the right of free enterprise, has to accept all this as just a natural way for hunting to go. I am only glad that I can say that I enjoyed hunting before commercialization grabbed the sport with its strangle hold. I truly treasure those early years when hunting was just hunting, and the science that drove the sport was limited to that which was imparted directly from parents, other relatives and aquaintances and ones own observations and conclusions. The whole activity seemed a whole lot more personal and self directed. But like I said, all things change whether we like it or not. And if people now find it necessary to complicate their hunting, and exclude others to get those TV bucks, well thats all part of the changes too. It's a harsh thing to say but, "get used to it!" It isn't going to change back.

When you consider what really is happening, it is a wonder that NYS hunters, fishermen and trappers are not staging some sort of protest revolt. Think about it ...... They have raised the fees on our licenses, and then the state makes provisions for raiding the P-R and D-J funds and also stages several slash and burn raids on DEC resources throughout the past couple of years. So what just happened? Essentially sportsmen and women have been singled out from the rest of the population and taxed by the state government to pay for general state budgetary activity .... not really anything to do with DEC needs or solvency. Did you all get that? ..... we as a group were singled out to help bail out the government. None of that had anything to do with environment, game management or anything to do with nature. And by the way, we are sitting here, apparently contented about all of that, claiming that we are getting a bargain ;D .

Yes, the money is being collected under a federal program and apportioned back to the individual states. If they see that the funds are being stolen and used inappropriately, they certainly do have a right (and duty) to enforce the intent of the program or withold the funds from the offending state. Sounds like an appropriate response by the fed.

And we all know that even with the best intentions and flawless execution, stuff happens, doesn't it? Not nice, but still is a fact of life.

Ah, but the dilemma is when you vote these clowns out, what new batch of clowns come in to replace them. Remember, every jerky politician that we have now replaced someone before them. :

It has to be done. We have had decades of incremental growth of government, and the only solution is just like private industry ..... downsizing. We have grown beyond our ability to support what we have created. But now the only question will be whether we wind up cutting the right stuff. That seems to be something that is seldom done correctly even in private industry. Let's see if duplicate activities and all the favorite social bells and whistles get pared back. Let's also see if all the layers of management that have been added over the years get peeled back or whether it is just the workers who actually produce that get the lay-offs. Frankly, since it is management that makes the decisions, they likely won't be cutting their own ..... . We have to remember that this is NYS ..... the state that loves its liberalism. Can they make the correct hard decisions? Well, if they do, it will definitely be a first.

Maybe yes .....maybe no. I'm thinking, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... well you know the rest.

The proposal that we are talking about pertains to statewide situations and so my comment was aimed at the situations of the overwhelming majority of properties and their use.

Personally that change would be of no use to me. I have no intentions of hunting less than 500' from somebody's buildings. Also, I don't think I would be real happy about looking over on a neighbors property and finding someone staring out of the bushes at me ..... lol. In fact, in the interest of low-impact hunting among non-hunters, I think I would leave things the way they are now. Frankly, I don't want to be viewed as a pest, threat, or hindrance to anybody's privacy. I also look at buildings as places of human and critter activity, meaning that people and pets and farm animals are likely to be wandering around considerably closer than the structures. If there is interest in hunting densely populated suburbia, I think it is not completely out of the question to simply get permission. If the deer population in such a setting is truly a problem, they will be more than glad to grant permission.

What a great demo item for bowhunter safety training instructors. It looks pretty slick. I don't see it as being too useful for pre-shot action in the field, but for study ahead of time just to get familiar with the effectiveness of different kinds of shots it looks pretty good.

The one version of AR that I am very much opposed to is the "antler spead" version. That particular type of AR is just custom-made for mistakes. Particularly for bow hunting, the shot that I am looking for is a totally unaware broadside shot. I don't want to be looking at a side profile of the buck trying to guess whether the antler spread meets the legal criteria. I also do not want to be forced to get the deer's attention to make him turn his head toward me so I can see the spread. I also don't want to be finding bucks rotting in the woods because someone else made a bad assumption based on a side profile view. Beam spread may be a much better indicator of maturity than point-counting, but it is also a much tougher feature to verify.

It is totally amazing how you are able to spout all of their talking points so perfectly without actually being a member of at least one of the anti-gun organizations. I have yet to find even one point on which you have stepped off the party line. So it must be one unbelievable coincidence. Well anyway, there seems to be absolutely no difference between you and any one of those that never read a gun control law that they didn't love. By the way, are there any gun control laws that have been proposed in the last few decades that you actually don't support? Since you used the word paranoia, let me explain that the best example of paranoia that I can imagine is a government or a bunch of "they're all out to get me" individuals and organizations that want to burden and harrass law abiding citizens with worthless laws based on their belief that these people cannot be trusted with private ownership of firearms. No, we are not all out to get you, and you really don't have to adopt a campaign of harrassing law-abiding, gun owners with a bunch of "just-in-case laws". Further, in the rare instance that you can get an anti-gun organization member to speak with a bit of frankness and openess, and honesty, they will eventually admit that they have no intentions of merely controlling guns, but have true desires to make private ownership of firearms a thing of the past. And if it takes legal harrassments to do that, they are not above using that tactic as well. If somehow those facts have escaped your notice and understanding, you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention. That is if contrary to my suspicions, you do not already share those same goals.

My guess is "No" ...... . So anyway ...... If you ever had any doubts about where issues of environment, hunting, fishing, and nature sit on the state's priority list, this should clear up those doubts. The DEC is merely a source of revenue for the state. And all that extra money for license fees that was supposed to rescue the financials of the DEC? ...... well, I'm sure our legislators are very thankful for it right along with our P-R funds and the D-J funds. ;D The only thing is that this attempt to steal our funds may have backfired, and perhaps nobody is going to get their hands on it. I've got a feeling that this story is not over just yet. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but it may not be too late to back out and recover if public outrage gets to be loud enough. But the interesting thing is that this whole thing, regardless of how it eventually plays out, still shows the blatant disregard and contempt that the administration has for the DEC and their responsibilities.

And isn't it a fact that periodically (usually close to election time), we always hear some politicians ranting and raving about how "we must have an investigation into the gas price gouging and area income profiling". And then, mysteriously all demands for investigations quiet down and go completely silent. In recent years that has become quite predictable. I have to believe that there are some anti-trust violations being committed that implicates all the petroleum companies. I also believe that localized variations from one region to another are created and agreed upon. I have heard that it involves the financial demographics of an area (in other words price setting according to general incomes and ability to pay of an area). And yes, when it comes to the differences from one state to another, you can look directly at the state taxation policies. We do love our taxes in this state ..... lol. At any rate, I am getting convinced that there is some real price fixing when it comes to fuel prices and an awful lot of close cooperation between companies. I am also getting convinced that our politicians only get involved to the extent that their meaningless rhetoric is useful to their campaigns. In truth the only thing holding prices from going farther is the fact that when prices do get too high, the public does begin to modify their consumption, and that is not a a real good thing for the petro-business. There are simply some businesses that have more power and influence that our government itself.

Even though it has been said already, I will repeat it. The "point count" style of AR is the one that most proponents take seriously simply because it is understood that the least amount of mistakes will be made using that system. Perhaps we may not like the results of that system, but it must be recognized that there are a large percentage of hunters out there that do not make much of a science of their hunting and wouldn't recognize the difference between a mature deer and an immature deer. I'm talking about guys that hunt primarily opening day only or maybe just a few days out of the season. I think we might be surprised to find out just what a large percentage of all hunters that is. So first of all, it is important to understand just how much actual experience (or lack thereof) many of our hunters actually have. Note that I am not slamming these guys. I'm a believer in letting people be as casual as they want to be about their recreations. But I am admitting that not all hunters are as deep into the sport as we on this forum may be. So to be looking for some statewide action that considers the actual maturity of the deer for balancing out the age structure of the herd is a nice thing to talk about, but don't be getting to serious about ever seeing that put into law. If that's something that private landowners want to dictate for their own properties or their hunters want to hold out as their own personal goals .... fine. However, if we have state-mandated AR implemented in NY, I will guarantee that it will be a point count style whether we like it or not and whether it really is the right thing to do or not.

I am surprised that one who constantly parrots back the mantra of every anti-gun organization across the country could be confused about the actual purposes of harrassment style gun laws. Your people have been pushing them for decades and you all really do understand the real purposes of those laws, and you also understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with effective public safety.

This just goes to show that state by state comparisons are completely irrelevant. We need to be concerned with our state, our conditions, and whether we think we are getting the proper bang for the ever increasing buck. Frankly, from reading almost all of the comments on here about the state of New York game management it doesn't sound like many of us think that we do. So when the DEC says, "I need a raise", just like any other business, I say "show me you deserve it".

Those of us that thought that it could never happen now get to read about it. I have often thought that the DEC was simply a well that politicians go to whenever they need to pay a bit on their squandering ways. They have just gotten very creative about it. Here is yet another example. Perhaps they have now gone just a bit too far this time and created a bit of larceny that is just too big to cover up or bury in financial mumbo-jumbo. We'll see.

I know it is ancient history, but when I took my original gun course, it was held at night in the school bus garage. I have no idea when they stopped that or why, but it was handy. As far as online hunter safety training, there is an awful lot of it that is simply lecture. I would think that that part could be handled on-line with some of the more "demonstration" type parts of the course handled in a much shorter time-frame at an actual class. If needed, a short test could be administered just to check that the online stuff was actually read. I think it might be surprising how much actual class-room time could be eliminated this way without losing any of the effectiveness of the course. We're in the computer age ..... let's use them.

It's true that along with NRA membership, gunowners have to also supply pressure on legislators. But I have to say that almost all of my knowledge about up-and-coming anti-gun legislation comes from NRA alerts. There is no way that I would otherwise have the time and resources to stay abreast of all of the various issues and the details of those issues that they make their members aware of. And I would be very surprised if there others of us who could do a very good job of that on their own either. Also, there is a much more effective lobbying effort that occurs when done by professionals than we as individuals could ever match on our own. The fact is that the anti-gun forces are well organized and financed and they are relentless. You cannot allow a situation where the legislators have only anti side represented that thoroughly. I know that in the past I have heard arguments on here from people who feel that we don't need organizations to effectively protect ourselves from the various anti-forces. The feeling is that individual letters alone can do the job. That just plain isn't so. That old saying, "United we stand - divided we fall" is never more appropriate than when we are talking about the NRA or any sportsman's advocacy organization.

If a judge decides to take those responsibilities in such a hap-hazard fashion, I can't imagine how you would write any law to protect against that. The description of the judge's questioning, indicates that he was really not all that serious about his duties. I'm not sure how the laws and procedures regulating that situation are worded, but the extent of the questioning certainly was nearly worthless. That's just one of the shortcomings in relying on judges. ....stuff happens.

So, now that you all have deserted the NRA, exactly how do you safeguard your 2nd amendment rights? ..... or do you just let others take care of that for you. I know there are some who figure that their gun rights will be ok through their lifetime so they might as well save a little cash and let others worry about it. By the way, before we spit out that word, "lobbyist" with such disdain, bear in mind that there are dozens of well organized, and well financed anti-gun "lobbyists" that would go completely unopposed if it were not for the NRA performing that function.