Doc

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.

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters. And that makes a difference, how? You dont have people hunting deer with guns, the deer arent getting shot at with guns (with the exception of the occasional poacher), and they arent on ultra-high alert. Again, your logic on this just doesnt add up. I was simply answering your question. You are the one who asked. And I guess you probably missed my reply about the overlap of muzzleloader and bow seasons that already exists in both the Northern zone and Southern zone. Come-on guy ..... Let's keep up . So again, you are incorrect ..... there are people using firearms during bow season and in fact some of those are deer hunting as well. I am not sure just how many people that you envision are severely disabled to such a point that they would qualify for handgun use in bow season and who coincidentally would be interested in even doing that, but I am thinking that the number would be so small that you (and the deer) would be hard pressed to even know they would be around, especially when compared to the already existing small game gunfire. If we were talking small game hunting, yes, there would be people using firearms. We arent, we are talking deer hunting and taking deer with firearms during archery season. Yes, I realize the number would be small, the point still remains that most truly disabled people dont want to be treated like they are disabled, they want to be able to participate in things as closely to anyone else as they can. They can already hunt with guns in gun season, so your guns in bow season idea doesnt make sense. Now, I do have to say that this is kind of catching me off guard, its not your typical extremist line of thinking about crossbows. I actually never thought I would hear you say you would support the addition of guns in archery season. Actually, it is pretty extremist to support guns in archery season rather than crossbows, so I guess its more typical for you than I first thought. ;D Ok, without using your favorite phrase about "cherry picking", let me suggest that you go back and read the part about muzzleloaders and bows already sharing the same season for deer hunting. Maybe that escaped you the two or three times it was included in different replies (but probably not). If you really missed it, then I now understand why I have to repeat myself endlessly before you finally understand what I am talking about. As far as people feeling bad about receiving special treatment for their disabilities, I have to point out that that is what the proposed bill in the very first post is all about. Perhaps you are saying that that bill has no merit because some disabled people may take offense to special treatment. Well, I think you are wrong. I think they would appreciate receiving the assistance of a weapon that adequately compensates for the disability that they have. If that is a crossbow, then so be it. If their disability is a bit more severe where a crossbow simply doesn't cut it then lets at least be honest enough about what it is that we are saying that we are trying to do, and allow the appropriate weapon for the appropriate disability. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it ...... If we are going to keep all this from being just an insincere, empty piece of window-dressing then let's do something that actually accomplishes what we claim we are trying to accomplish. There's nothing extreme about that unless you believe that the whole idea of helping the disabled is extreme. Oh, and by the way don't let it throw you that I am suggesting that a few severely disabled individuals be given the right to use a weapon that their disabilities require. You won't be seeing me supporting a notion that able bodied hunters use handguns or even crossbows or any other inappropriate weapon in bow season. Nothing has changed there. You seem to be having some difficulty grasping the concept that we are talking about the severely disabled in this thread only.

Could become a very popular delicacy ...... roast unborn fawn. Yummy!! Shoot a doe and get some bonus fawns. ;D

No, that was my last hunt of that sort. Too many years have gone by since those days. I'm glad I did it while I could. We were all in great shape back then. Doc

Somehow I don't think that's where they were going with the idea when they allocated the cash to develop that feature. Doc, my comment was said in jest. In any event, it seems like that sort of crossbow represents a "concept Crossbow" akin to an automakers concept car. Such a weapon would probably not be accepted as a legal hunting implement but as a marketing tool it serves their purpose quite well (we are talking about it and can reference the company who invented it, its a win win situation for the manufacturer). Yes, you're right. We are both guessing about where this new crossbow might lead. My point is simply that just as the compound never stayed at the same technological level as the old Allen, What you are seeing in a crossbow today is nothing compared with the logical progression that it is bound to undergo. This auto cocking device is only an indicator that they are beginning to think along those lines already and that they have absolutely no intention of keeping the crossbow technology along the lines of what you see today. And consequently, my comment about "....and so it begins". Because surely this is only the beginning. By the way, in terms of legal limitations, remember that the initiator of legal exceptions is not a responsibility of the crossbow manufacturers. Someone is going to have to be monitoring every new design and legally proving that innovations move the weapon outside the official definition of a crossbow before they can be deemed illegal. That doesn't sound like a very cheap process, and most likely they will be given great latitude just as the compounds were. So I wouldn't look to the law to maintain restrictions and controls on just where crossbow technology grows.

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters. And that makes a difference, how? You dont have people hunting deer with guns, the deer arent getting shot at with guns (with the exception of the occasional poacher), and they arent on ultra-high alert. Again, your logic on this just doesnt add up. I was simply answering your question. You are the one who asked. And I guess you probably missed my reply about the overlap of muzzleloader and bow seasons that already exists in both the Northern zone and Southern zone. Come-on guy ..... Let's keep up . So again, you are incorrect ..... there are people using firearms during bow season and in fact some of those are deer hunting as well. I am not sure just how many people that you envision are severely disabled to such a point that they would qualify for handgun use in bow season and who coincidentally would be interested in even doing that, but I am thinking that the number would be so small that you (and the deer) would be hard pressed to even know they would be around, especially when compared to the already existing small game gunfire.

Lol ..... Spoken like a true anti-gun advocate. The anti-gunners know that the NRA is the only thing standing between them and their goal of total gun confiscation. I don't see how there is an honest person on either side of the gun issue who can truthfully deny the fact that the NRA is the only reason we have private gun ownership today. The Kennedys, Bradys, Boxers, Feinsteins, Schumers, and all the other members of the anti-gun brigade would have long ago had their way with our gun rights if it were not for the efforts of the NRA and their members. Those gun owners that think they are being so open minded and intellectual by bad-mouthing the NRA should give their head a shake and and just send in their contributions to the Brady bunch. To publicly bash the only effective 2nd amendment advocacy organization is pretty much in the same sort of thing.

Yeah, but you just know they will be back soon with another increase. And what are you going to do. You have 3 choices ... pay the money, hunt illegally, or quit hunting. Sounds to me like they have things pretty much their own way ..... they are definitely in the driver's seat and I think they finally have realized that.

Actually, back in the mid 80's, we did an Ontario moose bowhunt that was back in so far that we had to show the outfitter where we were going to be. He had never been there. We left his camp and traveled back in about 40 miles on what was little better than log roads. Parked the truck, unloaded the canoes and a small motor boat and traveled the length of a rather large lake. Then we portaged about 150 yards into another lake, and went the length of that lake and built a camp along the shore. By the time we were done, there was absolutely no sign of humans other than ourselves. The only sounds were the moose splashing around in the swamp on the other side of the lake at night, and the occasional tail slap of a beaver that wasn't taking too kindly to our campsite in his turf. In fact I didn't even hear an airplane all the time we were there. The fishing was great and supplemented the dried food that we took in. There was no outfitter doing any scouting or butchering or supplying ATVs or hotels or even feeding us while we were back in there ..... lol. The moose that we got was carried out in chunks along with all of our other gear, and the temperatures were such that we didn't have to worry about meat spoilage. The moose went out the way all our gear went in ....... on our backs. What the outfitter did for us was to first satisfy a legal requirement. He obtained the legal moose and bear tags for us and provided a Canadian fishing license. He also offered his walk in cooler when we finally got back to his camp with the moose, supplied a warm cabin for a good night's sleep before going home which we were required to rent for the entire week even though we only used it that one night, and oh yeah, he fried up the moose liver for our supper that last night in Canada. He had a bar and restaurant in camp. As far as scouting, that was done over the previous year with topo maps, and the final butchering was done when we got home. The first day was spent checking the lake edge and the swamp at the end of the lake and the edges of a small inlet river. That first day we had several calling sites located near some pretty good trails with fresh moose tracks. That was it ..... one day of on-the-ground scouting and a bunch of hours back home pouring over some topo maps. So all in all, I would call that about as do-it-yourself a hunt as the laws up there will allow. It required 4 of us to pull it off. I don't see any way that a single hunter could ever do it. Anybody can do it today if they are fit enough. By the way, back then the whole trip was dirt cheap. I'm sure that aspect of it has changed by now. Doc

Ontario Canada has a good moose population if you want to get back in far enough. Outfitters are required, but then there is no problem getting tags because the Outfitters are allocated plenty ..... At least that's what it was like a bunch of years back. By the way, just because you have to hire an outfitter, that does not mean that you have to use his facilities. Pack in as deep as you want to go (on your own).

Lol .... see, there ya go. You guys in the northern zone always have these goofy situations to contend with ;D . I've got to believe that there would be some fancy way of getting by that problem, but what the heck, I can't solve all their problems .... lol. Somebody else can work out the appropriate reporting deadline.

I included the warning notices to allow for an occasional computer glitch that we all know can happen. This gives the hunter some recourse if he becomes a "computer victim". It happens .... lol. Besides, they could afford the expense of an automatic mailing with the money they would save by not having their people running all over the state trying to support that "reporting rate" fiasco.

Well, I'm not going to try to guess where this invention will lead or what kind of marketing success it will have or even what impact it might have on the crossbow's effectiveness for hunting. I might however speculate that this is just one step toward bigger and better tech advances but of course time will tell. From what I see on the video and other videos in the past, I would say that the idea of a marketable repeating crossbow has moved one step closer.

As far as I know, nobody does this for disabled hunters, but then I am not familiar with the details of season rules outside of NY. However, if I am reading the game syllabus correctly, right here in NYS we have a bow season and muzzleloading season that overlap significantly in the northern zone. Bowhunting: Sep 22 - Oct 22 m'loader: Oct 16 - Oct 22 Also, it appears that here in the southern zone we have the last week of the late season shared by bows and m'loaders. So there are a lot more extreme examples of guns in bow season than the relatively insignificant numbers of severely disabled hunters that I am talking about. Having that arrangement regarding the entire general hunting population (even just the muzzleloading portion) is not something that I am real comfortable with. But, the actual numbers of severely disabled that we are talking about is miniscule by comparison.

The system along with enforcement would be 100% automated. Here's how it would work: Every tag would require a report ... Successful or not. That's the only requirement that would be different for the hunter. Since tags are issued by computer, and the reports are made by hunters via computerized systems, it is a simple computer function to compare tags out to reports in. Those who do not comply are identified by a simple computer sort. Warning notices are sent out with a final deadline for compliance. If that date goes by without compliance then the the penalty is levied. What the heck, we are already 95% there. Let's get the rest of the way into the computer age and let the computer do the work. Right now we have biologists and other expensive DEC personel running all over the countryside visiting deer processors, taxidermists, roadchecks and other places where harvested deer might be accumulated, writing down data, carrying it back to Albany, inputting it into computers, which apply all their guesstimates, factors, formulas, etc to eventually arrive at a "reporting factor" which they cross their fingers and apply to the actual reports to come up with a harvest number. Is that what we want the DEC to be doing with their limited resources, or should we be letting the computers be computers and free up all those man-hours and perfect the results in the process. Anyways, that's how the proposed system would work ...... along with a little bit of editorializing ....lol. There must be a flaw in that system somewhere because I have sent in that suggestion to the DEC on several occasions when they were soliciting such suggestions and nothing like that has happened yet.

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters.

Somehow I don't think that's where they were going with the idea when they allocated the cash to develop that feature.