mike rossi

I would never support this bill as written because of things it includes and other things it does not include. The worst part of it is target shooting and preventing the EPA from regulating lead ammo and fishing tackle. The following video may persuade some who oppose green ammo. I think the NRA should stick to protecting the Second Ammendment and stay out of hunting policy and conservation biology...

I have seen this too - draw a pic of a gun or the finger thing and the hippy teachers freak out... And they overlook a lot of the truly serious stuff... The world has problems....

Did someone say pollution? If you think your water trapline is polluted you can find out in five seconds.... http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mywaterway/mywaterway.html Another note: If you think this is bad, wait until we have fracked NY for 5 or 10 years...

Thats worse than following the stocking truck. Think about it - another hunter about has a bird pegged and he bee-lines over and steals the shot. Not to mention he shot carelessly... Dog breeders will tell you otherwise but the majority of bird dogs you are going to need to yell & whistle at for two or three seasons. Training is great but there is an aspect of training known as generalization and until that dog gets some actual on the job experience AND reaches an age of emotional maturity, its going to need to be voice handled in the field during the excitement of actually hunting. Its part of bird hunting and it always has been. The person who has a dog which is an exception to the rule is lucky!

An IC choke should be good. I didnt want to use the language "open choke" in case it was confused with no choke at all or "cylinder" choke. An IC is not that big of a step from modified,however. You can try it with #2 shot, but a pure guess is you would get more pellet strikes on a bird smaller than a goose with finer shot, at least #4, possibly smaller.

Full chokes actually have more fringing to the pattern, so the more evenly distributed, yet dense pattern which is produced with steel shot and an open constriction is better... "Try it, yull like it"... Good Luck!

This video is worth a look. He did a good job. More people should use their video cameras and get these fools both reported and plastered on you tube...

Here is another video, for those who are interested...

Or because the officer knows that if the charge is contested, that courts often scoff at wildlife laws the same way hunters scoff at green ammo and similair issues...

What you said below is patently false: "Truth is...except for a few rare instances, the use of lead shot on waterfowl had virtually no negative effect (except for the waterfowl that were killed!) on waterfowl." Instead of refering you to the volumes of research supporting that your statement is undoubtingly false; I will refer you to the little booklet you get when you buy your buck license called " NY Hunting &Trapping 2012 - 13 Official Guide to Laws & Regulations; Page 36 and 37. The states with the most progressive wildlife agencies and also the most abundant game and hunting opportunities, one example is South Dakota, have implemented manadatory Green Ammo on public land for over ten years.... I want to urge the younger generation of hunters to seek out science-based information before unconditionally accepting tired, old disproven myths... Again, watch the video... Again, old myths die slowly...

I use it for three reasons. First of all, I am one of those tree-huggers. Second of all, I dont want to swallow any lead or lead fragments. Third steel out performs lead - not vice versa. (I am not going to get into a ballistics other than saying that the shorter shot string, more uniform and denser pattern, actually make steel shot outperform lead shot). Balistics are not enough however. It takes practice and testing shell & choke combinations. I think we all should agree that the kills in the video are not consistent with the negative stories about lead shot posted in this very thread.... Why might that be? - It is because a wingshooter must know his shooting abilities to be able to take lethal & ethical shots. Not many people can kill birds at 60 yards as in that video. If you are exceeding your capabilities of course you will not make lethal shots.

I think most of us miss a lot of ducks on our first hunt...

Old myths die slowly... I use steel for turkey, honkers, snows, ducks, crows, doves, pheasant, woodcock, and grouse. The tightest choke I ever use, and I rarely use it, is IM.

You will get it, good luck... Good point about getting out of the boat... if you are swinging a shotgun fast enough to hit ducks, you will either fall over or tip a boat if you are standing. You need to get out of the boat and wade. Its not the recoil that tips boats, its your swing, and if your not swinging, you cant hit birds...

Although it is true you should reevaluate your choke, ammo, and shooting, you are probably shooting too far. A first year waterfowler getting seven in-range shots - I would think its more likely you were sky-blasting. Five hunters all emptying 3-shot semis are putting alot more shot into a bird then one or two hunters, thats why TV/Video hunts show birds falling at 40 yards all the time. Keep in mind as well, the guy with the camera is set back from the gunners, so the distance is further exagerated. The proverbial 40 yard maximum - is just that the maximum... Its not a high percentage shot. Here is a video Tom Roster who nowdays writes the ballistics columns for the big outdoor magazines. This video is OLD - the steel shot ammo we have today is much better than what he is shooting 20 years ago; which was likewise better than even earlier steel shot ammo.

Then why bother shaking the tree?

Never ceases to amaze... Baiting during a Primitive weapon season.... Talk about hipocrisy.... Actually kind of funny when you think about it... BTW: This infraction is not only wrong because of CWD but also in this state baiting is not considered fair chase... Two separate wrongs here, keep that in mind...

Like Jenifer said in another post, these types of laws have to be "vague" so that there is some flexibility. You have to consider the intent of the law - to lessen increased close contact of cervids due to some action (eg. feeding) by people. A lot of things can do that, even gut piles will get multiple deer to stick their noses in the same spot. So will scents - urine based or otherwise. I dont think the black & white you are looking for exists and if courts continue to scoff at "possibilities over probabilities", yes, some of these tickets will get trashed...

I posted this under a topic related to out of state hunting which nobody is really looking at much and since I think this is valuable info so I am reposting it here - hopefuly a lot of you will watch it. I think CWD should be taken more serious then that court did... This is a recent video in response to the recent emergence of the disease in PA. Not to change the topic or inflame a new discussion, but the info in this video is very contridictory to the postulation that protecting yearling bucks benefits the health of the deer herd... http://youtu.be/M_2ouzE_Rwc

So much for the protection of yearling bucks contributing to the health of the herd...

Here is a video about it from PGC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_2ouzE_Rwc&feature=share&list=PL984BF53ACB8C8D75

So is the law regarding the feeding of black bears vague to this court as well? §187.1 Black bear feeding (a) "Purpose." The purpose of this section is to protect public safety while conserving New York's black bear populations. The deliberate, intentional feeding of black bears is prohibited. The incidental, indirect feeding of black bears becomes unlawful once a written warning has been issued by the department. ( "Definitions." (1) "Feeding" means using, placing, giving, exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering any material to attract one or more black bears to feed on such material. (2) "Incidental or indirect feeding" means using, placing, giving, exposing, depositing, distributing or scattering any material for a different purpose but which attracts one or more black bears. This includes storage of garbage or refuse and use and storage of birdseed in a manner that is accessible to black bears. © Prohibited activities. It is a violation for any person to: (1) Feed black bears, except as authorized by section 187.2 of this Part; (2) Incidentally or indirectly feed black bears after the department has issued a written notice to the person or persons directly responsible for the incidental or indirect feeding of a black bear.

True, some of those tickets get thrown out of court. Personally I rather case my gun than deal with cops & courts, but to each his...

@ Post 17 Keep in mind that what is harmful to migratory birds is likewise harmful to the cherished whitetail deer... And, every species except introduced invasives are covered by one or both of these laws...

There doesnt have to be a law, here is why: Prima facie evidence is that evidence which is sufficient to establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless it is rebutted or contradictory evidence is produced. The prima facie evidence rule does not shut out evidence; instead it declares that a particular conduct shall be enough as evidence until and unless the opposing party produces contradictory evidence.