Mr VJP

Nothing a state employee does isn't because of a written policy. The agency would have been all over these biologists if this photo showed them doing something that didn't follow state policy. What does the sling you have seen look like and how does it work? Is it strong enough to lift 750 pounds? Maybe you can post a picture.

It was released unharmed after being weighed, so I guess the four legs together are the best way to weigh it. Can't put a sling around the mid section of a drugged bear because it won't be able to breath then. I can't think of another method that could be employed in the field. I'm sure they've weighed many bears and the state has decided this is the best way and is current policy.

I saw an article recently that Fish & Wildlife caught, tranquilized and released 736 pound NJ Black bear in northern NJ. I believe it was the biggest one ever tagged and released. Here's a video and story about the current state record black bear that was mounted and donated to the state museum for display. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/03/record_new_jersey_bear_unveiled_at_pequest_trout_hatchery_open_house.html

Ruger offers many new rifles with iron sights.

The removal of iron sights from deer rifles became a marketing decision by most rifle manufacturers in the 70's or so. Prior to that, most deer rifles had them. But eventually, most deer hunters decidedly preferred not having them, as they were surely going to mount a scope which were by then considered to be almost worry free. Irons became unwanted as they sometimes appeared in the scope's sight picture and were seen as nothing but added weight and brush catchers. There was also a cost savings for the manufacturer by not putting them on. Some makers, like Ruger, always offered them as an option, but at a higher cost. Today, some rifles still come with them if they are seen as tools that may be used with irons, like my Kimber Talkeetna in .375 H&H. Most Kimber rifles don't have them, even as an option. But dangerous game at close range still has a place for them. Close range deer rifles like a Marlin 336 or Win 94 will always have them, as the owner may prefer not to put on a scope. They are not obsolete by any means, but are just not being put on rifles that the owners were often taking them off of anyway. As far as having an issue in the field with the scope, you can have a backup sight system by getting detachable mounts and a spare scope or red dot sight set up and sighted in and just switching them if needed. In all my years I only had one scope issue. It fogged up on me. It was a cheap Tasco or something like that and that was about 40 years ago. That's when I set up my own back up system for the first time, but have never needed it since.

Last week I found the remains of two fawns on my land that were torn apart. Can't tell if they were already dead from the long winter and eaten by yotes, or if the yotes got them. There were plenty of tracks in the snow though. Every year, I also find at least 3 or 4 remains of turkey that were torn up leaving only a mess of feathers. I used to find a couple of turkey nests with eggs towards the end of May each year, but not since there have been yotes around the last 5 years or so. There are at least 2 packs that prowl around here at night. You can hear them howling from two locations almost every night. On top of that, I've seen fisher on the property 3 times since last October.

Are there any limits to the reasons gun grabbers can come up with to deny your 2nd Amendment rights? Apparently they can come up with enough of them, very few people will ever qualify to own one. Anger issues should be a reason for denial? Who decides how anger issues are defined? "Anti-Second Amendment zealots are sure to be stirred up by a new study that claims 22 million Americans have severe anger issues and access to guns. Thestudy, conducted by researchers at Harvard, Columbia and Duke universities, goes on to identify these angry people as generally young or middle-aged men living in suburban areas and having a history of impulsive and explosive anger issues. Next up: Gun confiscation. The study’s authors note that, while laws are already on the books limiting gun access for people with felony convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, there have been few attempts to limit access for people with documented anger management issues or alcohol abuse. In recent years, newly minted federal and state laws focused on limiting gun access to people with mental illness, but so far the results have been mixed. While it has been possible to prevent some mentally ill people from owning firearms, there are also cases where perfectly healthy individuals have had their guns confiscated after being swept up in this dragnet. Furthermore, the study’s authors point out that, even if mentally ill people are removed from the equation entirely, it would reduce violent crime by only 4-5%. The study concludes that it's time to widen gun restrictions to include people with other misdemeanor convictions and documented behavior that, according to its findings, indicate the potential for gun violence. The anti-gun lobby is sure to latch onto this study as it continues its fight to remove firearms from private ownership. Certainly there are people so mentally unstable that they shouldn't own guns. But who gets to decide just how angry people must be before we revoke their Second Amendment rights? Is it, for example, throwing a rock through a neighbor’s window, or is it something mundane like raising one's voice in a heated discussion about picking up the trash? Everyone expresses anger, and, while the study defines an "anger problem" through a series of aberrant behaviors like repeatedly destroying property or getting into physical altercations, lawmakers may not adhere to such a strict definition. Nor does it instill confidence that the execution of laws meant to curb gun ownership by so-called angry people will be administered without prejudice. We need only look at the gun-grabbing effect of laws already on the books to prove this point. Take the case of Michael Roberts, a law-abiding citizen in California who had his 21 firearms, including some irreplaceable family heirlooms, confiscated in 2010 when his doctor filed a restraining order against him. The matter was peacefully resolved, but the police refused to return Roberts’ guns despite a court order instructing them to do so. In the end, he sued for and received the cash value of his guns, but the police, who had no such authority under the law, destroyed the firearms. Sadly, the Roberts case is not unique. States with strict gun laws — California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, et al. — often operate on a confiscate-first, ask-questions-rarely mentality. These types of cases happen under the radar and often go unreported in the media, leading people to think lawful gun owners needn't fear having their guns confiscated and destroyed by government officials. The gun grabbers who hide behind state and federal laws count on the bureaucracy to mask their actions and to prevent people from seeking restitution if their guns are confiscated. Oftentimes, the cost of litigation, fees and fines are too great for gun owners to pay, and they have little recourse as their firearms are seized for ginned up reasons. The right to own firearms is protected by both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, which covers private property. But if government officials and anti-gun zealots are making the rules, the status of legal gun ownership will remain on precarious ground." The Patriot Post

Try looking on www.gunbroker.com

The NRA insurance is legit. If your guns are stolen, report it to the police and file a claim. You get paid up to the amount you have insured. I believe you get $2500 free just for being a member and can buy more coverage for very little extra. You also get other insurance for being a member, like coverage for hunting accidents.

If an animal was illegally shot, and it's runs onto posted land, the landowner cannot refuse to let the DEC onto the land to retrieve it.

"Not really. Talked about it a lot but did more target shooting than anything." You have a problem then. If hunting was a big part of your life prior to meeting her, she married you for what you were and that was part of it. Everything afterwards is all part of the negotiable compromises that wives seem to believe go along with a life sentence....err, partnership. For some reason, some married men are not allowed to change, or grow, or take up new interests, without approval. If your wife also adheres to that rule by not changing, or growing without discussing it with you, you are in a tough spot. Perhaps the best thing to do is tell her how much you would like to be able to hunt and ask her what she would need in return to agree to it. That's the compromise she's looking for. If she says she's not agreeing to any real increase in the amount of time you can go, you are in trouble. I was a big time hunter before I met my ex. But that's the position I found myself in 24 years ago. I've been single again ever since.

Did you hunt prior to getting married, or only start afterwards? Your answer matters.

It's hard to tell for sure from the photo, but that may be a Fisher. There are lots of them showing up around NY lately. I've been seeing them on my land a lot these days.

This case is all about money. The land owner wants those antlers for their value. Passing a law saying the land owner owns the wild animals on his land would open a huge can of worms that would only fuel the litigious society we already suffer with. How long was the deer on the land? Was it just passing through in the night? How do you prove what land it was on? How do you prove any of the facts about the taking of that animal without the legal system getting involved like it was a murder trail for a human being? Who's going to pay the costs of those trails? Is it owned by the man who's land it was shot on, or the man's land it died on? Things will get real complicated, real fast. I also believe moving towards land owners having legal rights to wild animals on their land is moving towards the European model of conservation which would not bode well for the American hunter, where hunting becomes a pastime of the rich and powerful elite. Status, privilege and connections would become needed to hunt, in addition to your state issued hunting license. Wild game in America belongs to all Americans. That's the way it should stay. This has nothing to do with those who own game farms containing animals that are fenced in. That's private livestock, and a whole different legal thing.

He only just started his second term, but New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is already looking ahead to a possible third term. New York State Board of Elections records show Cuomo's campaign committee has changed its name to "Andrew Cuomo 2018." If he's the best NY has to offer, the state has a dark future ahead. http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3757186.shtml

So when's the trip to Alaska?

When the government decides to ban possessing a rifle like the AR-15, it is the duty of ALL gun owners to stand up and fight that ban. If you are a gun owner that does NOT stand up against that ban, in every conceivable way, you are part of the reason guns get banned!

Usually comes up again in a short while. I've waited at the FFL in the past for it to come back up.

Happens a lot. It's far from a perfect system

This is the T/C .32 for sale and the other one is a custom .36

These debates have been going on ever since man started hunting with a spear instead of a club.

Beautiful Flinter! There's a guy on gunbroker.com selling a mint condition T/C Cherokee in .32 caliber percussion cap that I'd love to buy. He says he's only fired it 6 times. He's asking about $600 for it though. People have bid as high as $550 but didn't hit the reserve. Great squirrel rifle.

In case you are not aware, every post you quoted from me was a response to a post from someone else. I'm not the one with the problem. People who call me to respond are. You're still in the wrong forum. ( I fully expect this is now going to turn into the whiny, cry baby, stomp my feet like a 2 year old if I don't get my way forum )

I see it like this, people will try to convince other's not to push confrontation to remain comfortable in their own position. Imagine how many people asked Rosa Parks why she "needed" to sit in the front of the bus. She could get to her destination just as well by sitting in the back. Why do something that goes against what our oppressors want so it makes it hard on the rest of us? It's a simple answer. Nobody ever won a fight against their oppressor by complying with their oppressive demands. Nobody "needs" an AR to hunt with? Nobody "needs" to hunt at all! Your rights are not limited by what others fear, or what they think you need. If you don't fully support responsible gun owners having AR's for whatever reason, you don't object to infringements on your rights.

His question should have been answered with another question. "Why would you ask such a question? Would you ask a man to justify any of his other preferences with the same disdain?" I think that is a question no gun owner should ever ask unless he wants to admit he's against owning an AR for hunting in the first place.