Doc

Somebody still has to man the controls on a 24/7 basis somewhere .... right? However, a couple of tweaks and we could get the manual labor element right out of it. Perhaps the guns could be hooked up to motion sensors that would blow everything flat that moved out there ..... lol. That would save some man-hours of hog removal time. You might even be able to pick up an occasional trespasser or two as well. Add in a couple of full-auto rifles, and a reciprocating sweep mechanism that allows the lead to cover the whole field, and you could have a doozy of a high-tech varmint eradicator.

So, I see the NRA part of this thread has completely disappeared, so what the heck, I'll just go with the flow.....lol How many hours a day do most of you each spend researching the dozens (hundreds?) of candidates that will be running for office in the next primaries and elections (local, school, county, state, federal)? That local Town Supervisor who had absolutely no prior voting record ..... How did you make up your mind about his/her beliefs and qualifications? Was it based on who spun you the best yarn during the campaign? There are potential congressmen and senators who today you have never heard of. When will you begin your research on all of them? How about that judge that will be running? Anybody here study his case judgements to see if they are decisions that you agree with? Those that claim to vote for the "best" candidate ..... what kinds of investigation techniques are you using to figure out whether they deserve your vote or not. Will you wait until the campaigns begin and pick whatever soundbites or political attacks or rumors or innuendos that sound the most convincing? I have always been curious as to how people so confidently arrive at this feeling that they have voted for the "best" person. Political party affiliation may be a lousy way of voting, but in most cases, it is the only concrete clue that you may have to the general way these characters think ..... and even then it's pretty much a crap-shoot.

*quote author=name of replier link=topic=108.msg41467#msg41467 date=1296091060] *quote author=embedded quoter link=topic=108.msg41428#msg41428 date=1296085214] Blah –blah, blah, blah blah blah [/quote* More blah – blah, blah, blah [/quote* Now you could add in your reply here. ----------------------------------------------------------- The part of the reply that I have shown struck-out, is what I would delete if I wanted to get rid of an embedded quote. Note that I have replaced the "[" and "]" with some *'s in a few places. This was just done for illustration purposes so that the forum software would not automatically hide the code and display these things as quotes. That is how I was able to display the code to show what gets deleted. Those brackets would have to be lined out as well. Yeah, I know ....... clear as mud ....lol. Doc

That's not a reference to a male sexual body part is it? ..... No, that's not spelled that way ..... lol. .......Just Kidding!!!!

Lol ..... this thread has taken a few strange turns here within the last couple of pages. Now we have generational warfare, and a battle of the major political parties. I think it is heading in a direction that I have heard all too much of over the years. It's probably not an area that I would like to get involved in. Politics ...... a subject that can get real unfriendly - real quick. I've got a feeling that this generational thing could probably get just as ugly...... ;D . Thread has taken a bad turn ..... time for me to leave......

This is not something new. When the concept was initially going to be put into business, there was a huge uproar. I am surprised that there are sportsmen and women who don't recall all that controversy that went on when this kind of activity first came to light. I believe that there were a whole pile of states that wrote laws outlawing the practice, but I don't think they all did. Anyway, the "anything goes" mentality has raised its ugly head once again. Those that complain about ethical discussions and that have said that "as long as it's legal. it's ok with me", should keep a picture of this rig taped above their computer for the next time those discussions come up again .

To eliminate the string of quotes and reduce it all to just the last actual reply, I manually delete quotes that aren't necessary. Also if I want to add quotes from other messages, I do that manually too by hitting the little "quote" icon in the reply toolbar then cut and paste the quote that I want to insert. It's all a bit messy and cumbersome, but I don't do it that often, so the work-around does work. That's the only way I have found to manage quotes. Doc

LOL .... No I am not a secret official of the NRA bent on covering up some deep dark secrets of the organization. I'm just a simple rank and file member who believes that I should support an organization that believes in the rights of private individuals to own firearms. Simply, I believe in putting my money (and support) where my mouth is. If you have questions pertaining to that organization, great. I would expect you to try to find out the answers to those questions. That's what I would do. It may turn out that you wind up with some flat out disagreements with some of their positions. Then you might want to balance those disagreements against what happens if we are completely disorganized and in a state of defensive chaos as our anti-gun friends would prefer. That's what I do. That's why I am still a member.

The interesting thing is that there is so much that can be done to the practicality of gun ownership and usage that can work around the 2nd amendment while leaving it completely intact. As one simple example, the amendment speaks of arms, but says nothing about the ammunition. It speaks of the right to bear arms, but does not speak about the harrassing regulations and restrictions and costs that can be levied or applied to such activities. There are no limitations expressed or implied about what arms, or the specific nature of those arms that we have a right to. I think you get the drift of what I am getting at. There are ways of making a right impractical to exercise. Many of those ways have already been used. Many more are being developed all the time.

Just a brief word about the notion that all members of any advocacy group must "agree with everything" that that group says. That is quite an unrealistic requirement that is destined to make all organized representation impossible. Nothing will please the anti gun factions more than to realize that the majority of gun owners demand such an impossible requirement. Because I assure you that they are not inhibited by such ridiculous notions.

What you are describing is an experience with the NRA that is considerably different from my considerable number of years of membership with them. I have gotten legislative alerts that are fully backed up with information about who, what, where, when, and why, on a fairly constant basis. Further, for those that are creatively challenged, there have been occasional sample letters, complete with names and addresses of the appropriate legislators. Also, their magazine includes all kinds of articles that will keep you up-to-date on the current anti-gun activities of those individuals and organizations that would disarm the public, as well as details of victories for the pro-gun forces. And yes, Wayne LaPierre is entitled to an occasional vacation, I would suppose..... lol. I do not demand that he completely stop having a life nor do I feel it is necessary. Frankly, I do not see where anyone could ask more for the relatively small amount of money for membership. Perhaps it is the notion of getting something for nothing that makes us believe that we should be entitled to reap the benefits of services of such organizations without financial support. But I do understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I guess I am just one of the suckers that actually pays his way for the maintenance of the rights that I believe in. I suppose it's also necessary for me to foot the bill for those that want the free ride also. It has to be recognized that the kinds of resources required to lobby legislators and to support legal challenges is substantial. It's hard to imagine it any other way. I don't know, it just seems kind of like the right thing to do to put my money where my mouth is. I have never been one much to accept the benefits of other's hard work without some form of compensation. I hate the thought of being a free-loader, so the small amount that is required for membership is really a bargain considering that they are exerting influence that I as an individual absolutely cannot. I'm glad that there is an organization that is dedicated to protecting gun owner's rights, because by gosh there are plenty of other well organized, well funded organizations that are diligently working the system to severely limit, or dissolve our ability to privately own guns and ammunition and enjoy shooting sports without undo harrassment. That notion is not a scare tactic created by the NRA, and in this era of information technology, shame on anyone who thinks that is the case.

Most of my scouting that is done directly for stand locations is done carefully in-season. That scouting is primarily done for bow hunting, and the results of that bowseason provides the intel for the gun season. So pre-bowseason and in-bowseason scouting are generally aimed at rut sign, feeding activity and locating currently used trails and timing patterns for stand placement. These pieces of info help to create a current picture of deer patterns. There is a second kind of scouting that goes on year-around. That is simply observations aimed at determining the size and content of the local herd. That is primarily for satisfaction of curiosity more than gathering any real useful hunting info for the upcoming season. Throughout the year, feed sources, cover, fawning and rutting behavior keep patterns in a constant state of change, and most of any non-fall info that I may discover is sure to change dramatically with the different phases of the rut, dropping of the leaves and the coming of mast crops, etc. So info gathered in the late winter and spring and early summer serve only to satisfy curiosity, and perhaps supply a bit of historical info about the past season (old scrapes, rubs, etc.).

Lol ....... Some of this sounds like rhetoric from the Brady bunch. It occurs to me that the biggest fear that the anti-gunners have is a strong gun ownership advocacy organization. It is definitely not in their best interest to have an organization like the NRA growing in membership. So I would expect them to work on hunters and other gun owners, trying desparately to discredit the organization and turn back as many perspective new members as possible. In order to make the most advances in removing firearms from private individuals, it would definitely be useful to prevent gunowners from organizing into one influential unit. I mention this only because after reading several replies on this thread, I don't believe there is anyone in the anti-gun community who is making as passionate an anti-NRA set of arguments as some of those replies that I have seen here. I've got to say that it does really make you wonder a bit just what the real motivations are.

I guess we just had our "January Thaw" ..... eh? Now it's time to get back to the business of winter. YICK!!!! Doc

I am saying that this thread is getting circular and redundant and is starting to bore the heck out of me. I'm getting weary of repeating myself. If that's what you like to do, by all means, carry on with it to your heart's content. I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do ..... lol. I'm just telling you what I'm going to do. If some new and interesting viewpoint comes up on the subject that strikes my interest, I may jump back in, but right now it seems like the old season re-runs. Is that being a "thread nazi" (whatever that is). :-\

One of the good points of this system is that there are no inputting tasks involved. The license tags are already issued via computer, so that's "in there". The harvests are inputted to the computer via computer, and inputted by the hunters (no DEC personel needed there), so that's "in there" for free. What is needed is some one-time, not too tricky, software writing to do the sorts, compile the lists of hunters that are non-compliant, and send out warnings or citations or whatever communications that are required, so there is a slight cost there. I see it all as a massive cost cutting activity, which is the kind of thing that the DEC is in bad need of these days. Remember the costs of the current system to achieve some rather dubious results. That is, sending DEC personel all over the countryside trying to amass license info from deer processors and other harvested deer collection places, collating all that input and then having someone manually input that into the computers. Then there is the computer work that develops the "reporting rate from all that and then applies that to the actual reports tallied up. All that activity and effort and expense eventually results in a harvest count. That's not cost effective.

Ha-ha, I said I wasn't going to get into the penalty part of the plan, but here I go anyway How about this .... a two tiered penalty. One for the first 2 years that is not too high and is designed tomake hunters aware of the requirement for reporting. That one would be a nominal fine .... $25 ?? That kind of gets everyone onboard understanding that they are serious about reporting compliance and that reporting is no longer being treated as just a mere suggestion as it has been in the past. The second year, the same fine. At that point compliance should be very high. On the third year, begin to flag persistant violators and up the fine to the point where it is applying a bit of noticeable pain. That pain would grow significantly depending on the number of offenses.

I was replying to WNYBuckhunter's suggestion as shown in my previous reply and copied here below: It actually sounds like a pretty good idea, and puts some teeth in the law. However, I was trying to look at it the way the DEC might be viewing it. I know that the DEC is now aware of the "1 tag - 1 report" idea because I have sent them that suggestion numerous times, and at least once it was on an official questionairre that I placed in the hands of one of the DEC workers at a "state of the herd" DEC public meeting where they were soliciting such suggestions. But there is something about it that they don't seem to like. I was speculating that it might be the penalty part of the concept that they are afraid of. Just guessing. No, I am still a firm believer in the concept, but I will be the first to admit that there are some details that have to be ironed out (by better minds than mine .... lol). The toughest of those details is the penalty part for non-compliance.

Today, one of the things that you have to consider is whether you will be able to find a job or not once you have gone to all the effort and expense of preparing yourself for a specific occupation. After what I see going on in the DEC where their enforcement staff and all other kinds of positions in the department are being eliminated, I think a game warden is probably the last occupation I would head for. I don't know how serious you are about gunsmithing, but we have a guy over our way (Bloomfield, NY) named Doug Turnbull who does custom work on valuable antique firearms. He's kind of world reknown in his craft, and I suspect that he is doing just fine. Of course it's not anything like a hobby....lol.... but probably was at one time. He has just put on a huge addition and now has a very sizeable "factory", and has a parking lot full of employee cars, so I am guessing that business is booming. I'm thinking taxidermy is probably getting to be quite competitive now. They seem to be everywhere. A police officer is probably something that someone here on the forum may be able to advise you on. We must have somebody here that is into law enforcement.

I have stayed away from the penalty part of this idea because if there is a weak point, that is probably it. I'm thinking that the DEC may be just a bit reluctant to go a system like this because they might be afraid that there may still wind up to be too many people who don't comply. Coming down too hard on them may actually start to cut into the number of hunters in a big way. My first thought was to make next years tags contingent on the fact that you turned in this year's report just as you are suggesting. That seems to be a logical penalty. But ..... What if the number got to be too large? What kinds of criticism would they get is something like 40% (arbitrary number) of the hunters were banned from participating the following year because they didn't report. Never mind the criticism, how on earth would they accomplish their harvest with a large dent in the participating hunters. Not only that, denying the sale of licenses to a significant percentage of hunters also has income impacts on the department. It just might be that they really don't want to force the issue for fear of what the results might turn out to be. I don't know, I am guessing on all that stuff, but there is some reason why they don't want to get involved in the "1 tag - 1 report" system, and I am wondering if it isn't related to the penalty part of the whole plan. Doc

Look, you were the one who brought up the question of guns during bow season. Now you want to modify your question with it has to be a majority of the season? I'm just telling you (again) that there already are guns used for deer hunting during the bow season. You asked ..... I answered. I absolutely disagree with your statement on crossbows being as easy to use as a handgun. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, but I simply have a vision of a one armed hunter trying to load, aim and shoot a crossbow, and I am not picturing that as being something that is reasonable to expect. I'm not saying it can't be done because I have seen people do amazing things. Heck, I have seen a girl shoot a bow with her feet..... lol. And you can stop trying to make it sound like I am advocating opening up gun season for anyone who wants to use a handgun. I already addressed that. I still hold that the original bill that lead off this discussion is exclusionary, and I have offered a concept for fixing that. If you feel that there are some disabled people that shouldn't be accomodated, that's your decision. I don't happen to agree. However, I am not composing a bill or writing letters to legislators or even campaigning for the change. I am simply offering up the concept. If you don't agree with it, that's not really a problem. There's probably no need for endless post after post repeating the same stuff. It's getting rather circular now and not really all that interesting, unless you have some new aspect to the discussion.

As a related question, I have to wonder why the DEC is not enforcing the law when it comes to harvest reports. If I understand the "Reporting Rate" calculations procedure correctly, the DEC runs around to every processor they can think of and other places where harvested deer accumulate and then compares tag data to reports not turned in to Albany to establish a statistical percentage. What happens to that list of non-reporters? According to their numbers, it sounds like the list might be pretty long. So how come I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket in the mail for not reporting? They have them caught red-handed, wouldn't you think they would be leveling a lot of fines? Have any of you ever heard of someone getting a ticket in the mail for failing to report? Doc

Yes, and I have already wasted far more time on you than you deserve. I'm sure this is not the first time you have had your mental instability problems pointed out. And I think the tone of ALL of your posts shows that you have no intention or ability to carry on any kind of reasonable conversation. So do what you think you have to. I am done with you.

The "1 tag - 1 report" system is simple. It is what allows the computers to do the computing.......all the computing. Apparently we can't rely on the system as it exists now which is just what you said, "no report - no harvest". If we could rely on a "no-report" truly meaning "no - harvest" I would guess we wouldn't need all the nonsense required in coming up with a "Reporting Rate". But since the reporting rate is so ridiculously low, something is needed to make people report successful or not, so the computers in Albany can do an automatic sort and report the non offenders. This means that you have to take the time to report your results for each tag or suffer the consequences of failure to comply with the law. It is all designed to do away with DEC personel using their rare and valuable time running from one processor to another gathering data on a few harvested deer and comparing that with how many of those actually got reported, to establish some kind of guessimated "Reporting Factor". How simple is that? By the way I would imagine that the info that they pick up at the processors about harvested deer has to be manually inputted into the computers to see how many of them were not reported.....more wasting of DEC time and money. This "Reporting Rate" research is just one big useless exercise that would not be necessary if hunters could be made to comply with the law. And even with the occasional false report, and the few hunters that will risk not complying, the results will most likely still come up much more accurate than the wasteful system used now. In terms of people lying on their report, I guess if they want to do that, they are probably doing that now by simply ignoring the reporting law, so that's not anything new. If it is not the case already, it might be useful to make intentional false reporting an infraction. One thing is for sure, it is one thing to just let reporting slide and let the DEC spend the money to do the guesswork and quite another to report a willful lie knowing that it is in the computer and on record.

So Squats in trees, what exactly is your problem that you don't even have a clue how to discuss anything in a courteous fashion. Are you thinking there's something clever or convincing about constantly being such a jerk? All you are really doing is demonstrating that you have no concept of common decency. I pretty much have been ignoring your foolish braying but I must admit that I am finally a bit curious about what makes you have such a need to display your obvious poor upbringing and total lack of social skills. I'll go back to continuing to ignore your weird personality, but I thought just this once that it might be interesting to ask just what kind of mental instability makes a person conduct themselves in such a screwball fashion.