Doc

Busy day here on this thread. It's tough to keep up on all the different twists and turns that this thing is going through ..... lol. I came back in and there was something like 3 pages added. :-\

I maintain that given the events of the day, even if they had had the same weaponry that we have today, the wording of the 2nd amendment would not have changed. While the times may have changed, the sentiments behind that amendment haven't. Your example of a flawed gun law makes me wonder just how you would write a law to take care of that situation. Would you outlaw all firearms that are not single shot? I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I am genuinely curious as to how far some of you people would go before you were satisfied that gun laws were adequate to end gun crimes. I realize that you are just one person on that side of the debate, but I think it would be instructional to at least get your opinion on how far is enough. As far as who is at the head of the NRA, I guess that just like my relationship to the US ...... the leadership doesn't always come up to my liking, but that doesn't have me deserting the country....lol.

Not everywhere on the early ML, just locations that need more herd control. That's another thing that I think is a bit weird. A season that may or may not be there when you want to use it. There is no way of planning for using that season since no one knows until kind of late in the year whether it will be offered or not. Trying to guess the possibilities on antlerless permits is always a pain, but even if you don't get a permit, you can still hunt for a buck. But here is a whole proposed season that may simply vanish at the last minute because of a change in herd size estimate. I guess if you are planning a vacation for that ML season, you had better have some alternative plans .... lol. Pack your bow just in case (If you have one ....lol)

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here. So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think. While I agree with most of this, I dont see the proposed changes as anything other than what they are at this point. Very limited use of MLs in area where they need population control, and the current set of seasons isnt having enough of an impact. Still waiting to hear your opinion on what should be done. In answer to your question, I think I have already said that the DEC is doing what they must do. Given the hunter decline phenomenon, they have no choice but to invade bow seasons with more efficient weapons. It's up to bowhunters to fight that if they want to preserve any practical aspects of pure bowhunting. With that battle being fought, hopefully compromises will occur that satisfy both sides as much as can be expected. I'm not sure just who we expect to carry the bowhunter part of the battle seeing as to how so many bowhunters refuse to organize. But that's another topic. I think I probably view the proposed muzzleloader seasons as being more of an impact than many others do simply because of my location. If there is any place in the state that the early muzzleloader season will be almost permanently installed, it is 8N .... lol. However, any WMU can eventually be impacted by the possibility at any time so I would guess that no bowhunter anywhere should ignore that as a real event. I might add that any limitations such as "doe only" can be changed at the mere stroke of a pen so I don't take a whole lot of solice in that rule. If you think back to what bow season was when it first started vs. what it is today you can readily see that rules and regulations are temporary at best. Also the early youth gun season is proposed as statewide as I understand it. The impacts of that are still only theoretical, but it does show the DEC's readiness to choose the one season where such an event would have the biggest impact on bowhunting. Incidentally, the choice for the location of that special season further convinces me that bowseason is looked upon as being sacrificial by the DEC. I believe that these proposed changes are simply incremental steps that even by themselves have some significant impacts on bowhunting but even worse it establishes the precedent of adding deer hunting gun seasons right in the middle of a bowseason. Once that is accepted, there is no limit after that. In my last reply above, I have listed the reasons why I believe that these things are not happening simply because of coincidence or oversight.

There is no place that they have proposed extending bow season without first introducing firearms into it as well. What they are proposing is creating a longer "early season". What those extra days in that longer "early season" are eventually used for is anyone's guess. But right now to temporarily keep peace in the family they have thrown bowhunters a bone while at the same time establishing an acceptance of deer hunting with guns mixed in with bows. Pretty clever I might add. In terms of the DEC adding money to their resources, we have all seen that they are not bashful about cranking up fees. They don't need additional kinds of licenses to do that. Also, as you just pointed out, they are very resourceful and clever at coming up with other ways of making money. So when the time comes they will make heroes of themselves to the majority of hunters (gun hunters) and for a small increase in gun licenses will offer them all kinds of additional hunting days ..... and in much nicer weather as well. Look, I am not going to say that bowhunting and muzzleloader hunting is going to go away, but the length and quality of bowhunting may very well see some severe concessions to gun hunting that we bowhunters may really not like. In fact the changes may make many question whether bow hunting is worth doing after they finally get through with the changes. And it sure seems like the DEC is primed to go ahead and do whatever they feel is necessary to get more efficient weapons into that prime segment of the hunting year. As far as sources are concerned, there was an article in NYS Outdoor News where one of the DEC hotshots was quoted as saying that bowhunters have essentially become buck hunters. I don't know whether it was Hurst or Stang, but it was one of the major players in the game management end of the DEC that was being interviewed. The implication being that bowhunters are not doing their job as herd-control tools. Also, there was a conversation that I overheard at one of the DEC deer management meetings where a biologist was (supposedly privately) discussing bow hunting as an ineffective harvest activity. Beyond that, anyone who pays any attention to what any one of the DEC people say, it is obvious that they are constantly searching for new ways to increase their ability to harvest does and impact deer populations. If you take note of the changes of recent years, there is an obvious pattern of re-regulation that assists in making doe harvests for effective. From the rule that allows signing over of permits, to the increases in permits, rules changes always seems to look like a frantic effort to implement new tools for hacking on the herd. It's not so much that they are hacking on the herd as it is that they are putting in place more tools for doing that when they wish to do so. My theory is that all this activity is geared toward a forecasted day when hunter numbers become so small that they need every trick in the book to control deer numbers. I think that is a very logical theory. And I am not saying the DEC is wrong to develop that kind of attitude and take steps to strengthen their ability to do their job. That's what they do. I am just saying that bowhunters had better be prepared to fight against hostile attitudes and actions, or face losses in things that make bowhunting practical.

The problem I have is that there is nothing inherent in a rifle that makes the shooter any smarter or more responsible than a shotgun hunter so I can't believe that just because a guy puts down his shotgun and picks up a rifle he all of a sudden gets smarter. As far as scopes are concerned, just about any shotgunner you run into will have one mounted on his shotgun. There really is only one difference between a rifle and a shotgun and that is the range at which they are normally shot and the distance that the projectiles can travel. And as far as what is inconsequential and what is not, I suppose that depends on just who the recipient is ..... lol. And while recognizing that shooting incidents happen with shotguns as well as rifles, lets no be thinking that there are no rifle incidents. And also, it seems that nearly every year there is the obligatory picture in the paper of some gray-haired old lady pointing to a bullet hole in their living room wall. So if some are concerned about extending the range of reckless shooters. I think I can share that concern to a certain extent.

Should be plenty of room for the frig, stove and recliner.

I think I remember some "lawn watering" bans in some of the towns around Rochester a bunch of years back because of extended drought conditions. See..... I tell ya it's that damned global warming. Somebody call Al Gore for some help.

Ah, the old emotional approach. That is a powerful way to steer an argument, eh?.....lol. But seriously, the fact is that gun control laws DO NOT work just as you said. So just how many more laws should we pass before gun violence is stamped out? When do we finally admit that these kinds of crimes are not impacted by gun laws no matter how stringent or numerous. How does that definition of insanity go? ..... something like, insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different result??? That sure seems to be our approach to crimes involving guns, isn't it? Don't know what to do? ...... Pass more laws. Those laws trample on the rights of law abiding people? ...... so what? - who cares? I think the answer that some are looking for is the ultimate. Just simply outlaw firearms completely. But then any thinking person really knows that that wouldn't work either. So what makes anyone think that any laws short of a total firearms ban will work? I hate to say it but we seem to be trying to solve a social, cultural, and attitudenal problem with hardware solutions. Could be that we are trying to cure the symptom rather than the sickness. That sort of thing really causes a whole lot of wasted flailing around toward no practical end, doesn't it?

And here is another crock: Those that think that if an organization has one or two issues that you don't agree with that the whole organization is a bad thing. That is what has allowed the anti-gun forces to make the large advances that they have. Gun owners seem to think that the NRA or any advocacy group has to have attitudes that don't deviate one bit from our own. Well, I'll tell you one thing, as soon as you make that a litmus test for anything you want to belong to, you might as well say that you aren't going to belong to anything. And that is the prime reason that sportsmen cannot be organized. Frankly, I could care less one way or another about 30 round clips. But even if I did, I would never see that disagreement with that position as offsetting all the good that the NRA does (and has done) for our gun ownership rights. As long as we hold our advocacy groups to that kind of ridiculous and impossible standard, we will never be adequately organized. It's too bad that the antis don't seem to have those kinds of impossible standards because they certainly are highy organized and extremely well financed and all too often kicking our butt.

I'm afraid that if these proposed changes cause all the confusion that they seem to be doing now, and bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters start missing out on doe harvests because of it, this whole thing of "more effective doe harvests" will completely backfire. Also people who have been confused right out of applying for permits are not people who will be looking too happily at any new AR areas being established. And the same things will apply for those who normally would have automatically received the ability to harvest a doe, but who have lost that ability due to some fluke of the lottery system. Just the fact that it is a "lottery" means that some will be denied even if they "up" the numbers. It also puts bowhunters and muzzleloaders now in competition with the regular gunners for those permits. I'm having a hard time understanding how any of this will improve the doe harvest as the DEC claims that they want. It seems like they are asking for doe harvests and then throwing all kinds of frustrations in as far as actually accomplishing that. Also in a different aspect of this thread, I guess I am not all that in tune with the attitude that I have heard from a few that basically says that producing a 5 year plan is a wonderful thing even if some or all of it is wrong. Change, just for the sake of change is NOT a good thing. It can result in aimless flailing around that does more harm than good. I think I detect some aspects of that in this plan.

And that is a problem that is entirely independent of season locations, season lengths, weapons used, and all these proposed changes. And there really is no practical solution to that problem.

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here. So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think.

When we had the failed rifle hunting resolution proposed here in Ontario County, I really wanted to hunt deer with a rifle. Just everything about it seemed to point toward a better hunting experience for me. However, I am also a resident with a concern about extending the range of some of the goofy people that I have encountered while hunting. Both positions nullified each other and I spent the entire debate in sort of a neutral position. It certainly was a change that I would have loved to experience, but the additional risk was something I wasn't real crazy about.

Good question. I'll bet you do. I would think that a CO would see it all as being only one difference between target shooting and hunting. That being the presence of critters. On state land, there is always the presence of critters. I don't know, I have never seen anything in writing on that, but just applying logic kind of tells me that if you are afield with a loaded gun in an area where there are animals, one might think that you could be hunting.

Steve- I think the point that is being missed is that the 2nd amendment really has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. In fact, hunting is not mentioned there at all. Also, hunting is simply one of the legitimate uses of firearms. In fact it would not surprise me if I were to find out that the majority of firearms owners do not hunt, or that hunting was a secondary activity for them. Even as dedicated as I am to hunting, I would say that the first mission of my guns is to provide personal and family protection. For me there is no way to be too extreme about that. If you have heard the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away". Well, when you live out in rural America, that saying takes on particular significance. I also am involved in target shooting. There too, extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Others are very serious about collecting firearms and I recognize their right to do that. I'm sure their tastes can drift toward the unusual when it comes to firearms selection and that should be their right. The point is that when you define the right to bear arms only in the context of hunting, your arguments get to be very limited, and a lot of other perfectly legitimate uses of firearms of all kinds begin to get left out of the discussion. That is one of the things that he NRA does. They complete the discussion by not leaving out any of the legitimate reasons for the protection of private ownership of weapons.

If you're really going to control that anti-social problem that you have, you're going to start getting serious about consistantly taking your medications. Those people can't help you if you don't do what they tell you.

My comment wasn't meant to argue the rightness or wrongness of what is going on, but rather to highlight and emphasize what I believe I see going on with the DEC's attitudes toward bow season. That was just in case anyone was missing the point that the DEC is involved in a bit of a hostile attitude toward bowhunting and perhaps is wishing it were not such a big deal in NYS. So any bowhunters who are feeling complacent or think that bowhunting has evolved into some kind of guaranteed right or enjoys the same level of protections that any of the gun seasons have, had better take a look at what is going on within the government organization that has the real control over this activity. Those that have a particular fondness for bowhunting had better keep an eye on what is happening and make their opposition heard. The nature of bowhunting is about to change and the actual negative impacts may be being led by the DEC itself.

And even if that's true (and maybe it is and maybe it isn't), why should the UN have any involvement in what takes place on our soil? I am not in favor of this idea of "one world government" that we seem to be heading for. I'm not really in love with most of the countries that make up the UN. They are a bit too much on the pinko side to suit me. I don't want them having even a "recommendation" role in anything that we own or do. So even if that is true, it still is bad news.

Those are some great pictures that show the deer in poses that are a lot different from most of what you normally see. Thanks for posting them.

I don't know. That rule number 7 is pretty darn clear-cut: "the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached". That wording doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle-room for stretching the interpretation. I guess I really don't understand the usefulness of that that rule as relates to any form of "fair chase". I just don't get the connection.

That's kind of the deal isn't it? There really is no reason why the rifle should not be used except for the fact that it would make some of the crazies that we have all seen afield, effective at even greater distance .... lol. That can be a scary thought.

Sounds like a Sarah Brady quote .... ..... Mind's made up! That's it! ..... Lol.

That's the one reason why I have never gone on a bear hunt. What would I do with it. I have this mental hang-up that relates eating bear meat to eating dog. And a bear-skin rug or wall hanging just simply does not go with the home decor. Besides, from what I understand the only effective way to get a bear is baiting. That is illegal in NYS and also a form of hunting that I don't care to be involved with. So the only way that I could ever get a bear would be by pure blind luck if one happened to walk in front of me while I was deer huinting or something. Not a whole lot to brag about with that scenario is there?

Living in the middle of the woods, my prime concern is fires. It's been a long time since I have seen conditions so dry. They are now talking about the situation resulting in a record July for lack of rain. What a weird year for weather. First we get flooded out and then just a few months later we are tinder dry. Must be that global warming of Al Gore's .... eh?