adirondackbushwhack

Certainly you have the right to believe that if you want, in fact I encourage you to get as many people as you can to vote NO just as often as they keep putting the same budget up for a vote. But if you win and the budget is voted down a few times when they pass it anyway remember who the bad guys are. It's not the teachers/workers. Oh and by the way another tacktic they will use is threatening to do away with sports or some other thing that is popular if the budget is voted down. The politicinas are your enemy and they win by keeping you and your friends and neighbors seperated. As long as they can keep you after each other they know you'll never untite and go after them. It's the politicians who have put you on the scent of the teachers in the first place isn't it?

Except for cutting pay I agree. Stated as you have just done we are in agreement what I disagree with is taking the side of the politicians and agreeing with them that it is the teachers/workers fault that the taxes are out of control. Attacking the teachers/workers is the way the polticians want the people to go to keep the heat off of the real cause of the problem, mismanagment.

Here's another thought for those of you sucked in by the politicians into the anti-union thing. As the union employees pay goes so follows the private sector pay scale. So while you may think that your own pay is immune to the cuts sought after by the politicians eventually those cuts will catch up with you too in the form of cuts or lost raises.

Lest you think I'm a teacher, I am not. I am a retired city cop. Voting no on the school budget will do you no good. They will only put the same budget up for a second vote and when it is defeated they will pass the exact same budget anyway as an emergency budget. I've seen it done before. I agree there must be reform BUT siding with those who broke the system (politicians) will not fix the problem it will only worsen it. If it's reform you want you're not going to get it by going after the employees, the only way you'll get it is by going after those who make and run the system. Cuttting teachers pay in half will give zero tax releif. The politicians are after that money so they can spend it someplace else and NOT for tax releif.

Hopefully all of the hunters will remember what camping world thinks of hunting when they are buying their travel trailers and RV's. I'm thinking that we hunters account for quite a bit of sales of theses things.

It seems to me that the politicians have successfully deflected blame for thier spending across the board so that teachers and workers are now to blame for tax rates. Sure tax rates are way too high but it is the politicians and their unchecked spending that is to blame and not your friends and neighbors. Heck State troopers base salary is 90 + grand and I beleive they retire after 20 years regardless of age. I don't see anyone upset about that but I'm guessing that is because the politicians haven't directed rage in that direction. Don't let the smoke screen fool ya, look for the real problems and not the ones the politicians want you to see. Hell there are virtually thousands of political patronage jobs across the state all at 100 grand or more and we don't hear a single complaint about that. How come?

Okay but it's still not the fault of the workers is it?

I find it kind of odd that so many blame the teachers for the salary they make. It seems to me that they are not the ones who approved those slaries they only requested them and it was the School boards that approved them. It's the same with all of the government employees. The Politicians approve the pay that the employees recieve. Simply put if they didn't want to pay that salary all they had to do was say no to it and there is nothing the teachers could do about it except to go to arbitration where a political appointee decides the case. No it's not the workers fault that they recieve the salary they do it is the fault of the politicians. I will fault no working person for seeking to make a better income, in the end if the government didn't want to pay those salaries then those employees could have sought work elsewhere. I have a feeling that it is the politicians who are driving this hatred against the employees and there is always a reason behind it. They mnust want to rape the employees not to give money back to the taxpayers but instead to keep it for their own use. Those of you who run a buisness know how it works. Your employee requests a raise and you either approve or deny it, does anybody really think it's different for the government employees? They can't even strike they have no strike no lockout clauses in all of their contracts.

I was doing that P90X thing you may have seen on TV. I have added the "Insanity" program to it. I do the Insanity in the morning and P90X in the afternoon. It's real easy I don't have to figure anything out I just pop the dvd in and follow along. Keeps me in decent shape.

.444 Marlin IN my experiance it is the best caliber available for woods hunting out to 200 yards. Anchors the deer right there every time and flat enough trajectory for 200 yard shots. I've use34d other cals but none have perfformed as the .444 does.

I've been hunting for quite a while I guess. IN the early days I lost a few with the rifle. I used a 30-30 back then and I seem to remember putting more then one and sometimes several rounds in a lot of those deer that I got in addition to loosing a few. Later I switched to a .444 marlin and haven't lost a deer since swithching calibers or had one go more then 20-30 yards for that matter.

The judge lied to you. Dogs are protected under the agg. and markets law and it is a crime to shoot them even if they are running deer. The guy commited a crime when he shot your dog; it sounds as if he was one of the good ole boys and the judge knew him. Certainly one has the right to protect themselves and shoot a dog that is attacking them but you don't get a double lung shot at a dog that is attacking you because the dog is facing you.

I have no doubt that there are certain occasions that the wearing of blaze orange may save your life in the event that some foolish shooter sees the blaze in time to not shoot. However another point of view might have camo saving your life by preventing the foolish shooter from seeing you in the first place. And of course there is the unproven theory I have put forth on shooters wearing blaze. I suggest that the clothing of the hunter doesn't matter in the big picture. The only way to prevent the wrongful shooting by hunters is to have all hunters follow the basic rule of shooting, Be sure of your target before shooting. Held to the standard of be SURE of your target BEFORE shooting and there is no excuse of any kind if a man is shot. Hunting is safer then taking a shower right now and it got that way by pounding the basic rules of shooting into everyones head in my oppinion.

why?

I cannot understand your perspective if you do not explain it to me. Instead of getting into a debate as to who is right and who is wrong we might be better served by simply trying to understand the perspective of the other. We may find, in the end there is still another perspective that neither one of us has yet thought of. Now to answer your question. I am intersted in knowing if there is a correlation in the number of shooters who are wearing blaze orange when they shoot someone. I've put forward a theory that the use of blaze, MAY and again I say MAY give the shooter a sense of security and shoot if he does not see blaze. However the news only gives one perspective and that being what the victim is not wearing and never gives the other perspective of what the shooter was wearing. IN fact Steve I wonder why the news would even bother mentioning what the victim is not wearing. What does it matter if he is wearing blaze or not?

What do you mean Steve?

That is the way it is where I hunt too. Scouting is key and it may take a lot of shoe leather to get it done but it is the only way. Find the bucks core area and if there is no snow still hunt through it and if you come across any doe just stay with them and hope he comes in to check them. If there is snow try to cut his track and walk him down.

I don't believe the orange would save me for one thing. Here we see a perfect example of the loss of use of mental capacity by the shooter. Would mandateing blaze orange change the mentality of those who might be prone to shoot before identifying their target? I don't think it would and in fact might have the opposite effect by reassuring them that if they don't see blaze they are okay to shoot. No one wears blaze where I hunt and most wear camo even in rifle season. It's not a problem to wear camo because there are no camo deer and then again the shooter MUST be sure of his target BEFORE shooting. The stats about what the victim of the shooting was wearing only gives one perspective. I wonder if there is a correlation as to what the shooter is wearing too. IN fact mandating orange would only give a slob shooter an excuse for not following the basic rules of shooting.

There is no law that mandates the use of blaze orange, thank god. In this case the shooter is 100% at fault. In fact if the person that was shot were wearing a deer skin coat the shooter would still be 100% at fault because he MUST be certain of his target before shooting.

Good luck to you too, I'm headed up this morning to make camp too.

I agree the poacher numbers are less but how much less is the question. Shooting starts in early Sept. around my property in the southern zone and continues night and day until the end of the real hunting season. I would guess that in that area more deer are poached then are taken by legal means however as you say that isn't the case state wide. Still I see poaching going unchecked in the Adirondacks too and just a couple of poachers can take several deer each quite easily if they know what they are doing. Under the right conditions they might spot light a dozen in a single night and I had a spot cleaned out just that way in the dacks several years ago. Heck on another thread here some place someone said that all of the deer bait was sold out of one of the stores. Anything shot over that bait is poached but I bet they don't get reported as such or bragged on as such. I have had the bad fortune of seeing what poachers can do to a local deer population and they can ruin an area for hunters. I have no doubts that in many places across the state poachers are having a very negative impact on the deer and the hunters are suffering for it. On my own land back in the day (before poachers moved into the area) I had my choice of buck and passed several each year until I found the one I wanted. Once the poachers moved in and started killing all of the doe the buck disapeared and I don't even bother hunting there anymore. It makes it hard for the guys who will shoot any buck and even harder for those who prefer mature buck.

I can't say if you are right or not I don't know of any studies on the subject.

I would guess that most hunters would rather shoot a ten point buck then a spike. It is the odd hunter who would shun a ten in favour of a spike I would think. I like to hunt mature buck and pass on young ones every year. There are many who don't pass any buck and take the first one that comes along. They might think that if there is antler restrictions they will have less oppertunity to harvest a buck. I think they are right. Antler restrictions won't work in many parts of NY because poaching is rampant. The only ones who will be restricted are those who follow the rules while the poachers will have even more oppertunity to kill. A few years ago on the opening of gun season I wondered onto some private land just after sun up at Grafton state park and found 6 young buck hanging behind someones barn. There are other groups that I am aware of that shoot upwards of 40 doe and fawn a year where there are no doe tags and only slow down when the deer numbers decline. I believe that if the state would stop the poaching there would be added oppertunity for all of us, for both those of us who prefer mature buck and those who shoot any buck. But, the state is not interested in stopping the poaching and until they really go after the poachers I am one mature deer hunter who will not want to support antler restrictions. Antler restrictions are only going to benefit the poachers.

$70.00 was last years price if memory serves me well. But a real pro job, he's a butcher by trade.

Heading out to make camp tomorrow morning. Good luck to all of you hunters.