steve863

Honestly, I don't think you are very good at hunting then and you think that AR's will somehow make things easier for you. Obviously since your area already has AR's, they aren't helping you much either. I don't consider myself much more than an average Joe hunter and hunt an area that has never had a great number of deer around, yet I have killed a buck the last 8 years straight and guess what? 5 of these bucks easily fall within the AR requirements. Why was I able to kill them and you weren't? Who knows?? I am still strongly against AR's nonetheless. You guys can continue to hunt for bucks that are ten years old and toothless, but why must you force your ideas of what hunting is on the rest of us?? That is the question at hand here, and I have yet to hear a credible answer from any of you. Legal regulated hunting has NEVER been about antlers for many hunters out there. This is a fact you fellas need to start understanding.

I don't think it is news to anyone that hunter numbers have been declining everywhere in NYS, even without AR's. Adding them is not helping matters either as the DEC is clearly telling you here. I have hunted in the Catskill/Hudson Valley region since the late 70's, and maybe I'm blind and stupid, but non-locals make up a mighty large portion of the hunters in this area. Many downstaters also own cabins/houses and property in this region. Maybe owning land for recreation makes them a local, but these along with those that come up just to hunt, add up to a very large number of people who hunt in this area.

"Evidence from the pilot AR program revealed no significant changes in hunter participation for the majority of hunters, though overall participation by non-local hunters appeared to decline because of mandatory ARs." And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the majority of hunters in the Catskill region are non-locals, meaning that total hunter participation is no doubt DOWN because of AR's. I am sure this makes the AR supporters mighty happy, since their mentality has always been to hopefully have fewer hunters around to shoot "their" bucks that would grow bigger if no one else was around or allowed to shoot them. If you think I'm kidding just reread a few posts on this thread.

Propaganda is putting it mildly. Exactly who are ALL these sportsman supporting AR's?? I find this rather amusing. From page 8 of the attached DEC document: http://www.dec.ny.go...rregapc2012.pdf "Summary of public comments: We received several thousand comments related to the proposed expansion of mandatory ARs, as occurred during public comment on the draft deer management plan in 2011. The vast majority of comments supporting mandatory ARs came as form letters, with several variations, and a few petitions. Many of the letters received were undated, lacked signatures, or were duplicates of letters submitted on the draft deer management plan prior to this rulemaking. Also included were letters of support from more than two dozen elected officials (New York State Senate and Assembly)." So the AR supporters flooded the DEC with unsigned chain letters to make it look look like the majority of hunters are in support of AR's? Why doesn't this surprise me? Not like most of them have half a brain to put together a letter in their own words in support. What boggles my mind is how the DEC made their decision based on this. It was obviously NOT for biological reasons since the have said before and say it again in this statement that: "However, mandatory ARs are not biologically necessary to maintain a healthy deer population in New York." Sad day for many hunters in the Catskills. Just sickening how the greedy desires of a few have impacted everyone else. They also use the term "hunters" and "stakeholders" when they talk about AR's in this document. Who exactly are the "stakeholders" here and why should their opinion even count?? My hunch is that these "stakeholders" are a bunch of sportsmans clubs who have been pushing AR for years now in this region. They have illusions of the Catskills becoming a trophy haven where they could charge even more in membership dues and then purchase more leases where the rest of us pee-ons who simply enjoy hunting whether we shoot trophies or not are left with even fewer places to hunt.

One would think, right?? Plenty of gun owners who would disagree with you however, which doesn't say too much about their sanity neither I am afraid. Have Nugent reinforce the idea that gun owners are nuts, and there will be NO reason for society to think that we aren't. Very easy to understand, really, for anyone with any sense.

So if someone were to go on a talk show to criticize the presidents policies and at the same time wave a gun and yell "suck on this Mr. president", society shouldn't think that this guy just might be a looney bird?? Sorry fellas you can stand behind any amendment you want, but if you find such behavior acceptable in todays world, then I see exactly why the anti-gunners don't trust you as far as they can throw you and why they want to take your guns. You boys make your beds, so go ahead and sleep in them, I'll be damned if I will support such behavior and consider such a person to be a fine representative.

Here's another video for you Nugent lovers. Hope you think his antics here are good for gun owners and hunters also. A fine and responsible gun owner he appears to be here waving his AR-15 on stage while bad mouthing a sitting president, heh?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8RIiTyhMI

Yeah, you'll see some bikers, hikers, dog walkers, that are inexperienced in the outdoors, but if you talk about weird looking and acting, the hunters I've come across win that prize hands down I'm sorry to say. It's no contest actually.

Good luck with the bachelor parties and strip clubs. That kind of stuff gets old even if you're single. I prefer to stay away as a married guy. And I was supposed to be the "less conservative" minded guy on this forum?? Well, I'll be a SOB, I may actually have more morals then some of you here!! LOL

If putting trophies on the wall is what's most important to you, then the above option is no doubt the best. Plenty of people buy land thinking they will kill monsters on it. Sooner or later they may get one, but it most likely won't be on a regular basis. Go to a few good out of state spots with an outfitter and your odds will be way better. Depends what people like I guess. Some people like planting food plots and all that stuff, but I tell you it will get old sooner than later, most especially if you are driving a good distance to get to it. Plus, for just the taxes you'd pay on even a small chunk of land each year, you can have a good down payment on an outfitted hunt with NO headaches associated with owning land. People buy land thinking it will be only fun and games. They don't realize all the work and money that goes into owning it.

I don't think anyone is blaming Facebook if someone does cheat. All some of us are saying it's one less temptation for married people if they stay away from Facebook. Just like being a married guy who gets asked by his buddies to go to a bachelor party or strip club. Just don't go, and then you won't get tempted to do something that won't make your wife happy.

I could care less what any school wants students to sing. As long as we can sing Kumbaya on this forum, I'm good.

Cheating can happen in other ways, but Facebook has opened up a whole new world for the people that never put themselves out there to potentially cheat. What I see happening is that thru Facebook people meet old flames, or people they wished had been flames in their past, and many times one things leads to another. You are right, cheating was going on well before Facebook was ever thought of, but I do think it has created an easy channel for many that never dreamed of actually going out (to bars, events, etc.) and looking for someone to cheat with.

MTV would die pretty quick if they depended on people like me to watch them. I have little interest and time to watch much of anything on TV, but I sure as hell know it won't be MTV when I do watch something.

Holy christ! You seem to be a Facebook goddess with 970 friends. LOL

I agree completely. Just recently I have heard that a couple of people I know got divorced. Guess what?? They both have very active Facebook pages. I will never participate in it. Forums like these are addictive enough and I often wonder why I even participate. I will never understand why many people feel this need to tell the world everything about themselves over the internet on something as stupid as Facebook. It seems like some will post a play by play of their entire day. Like someone really gives a s**t?? I guess everyone these days thinks they are a celebrity and think that the whole world is interested in them.

This is hilarious! I somehow don't believe Harry Smith would want to be quoted using those exact words. LOL

Actually it won't hurt him one bit politically. Democrats will probably vote for the democratic candidate, while he won't lose a single republican vote because of this. Who else will the republicans vote for?? The democratic candidate?

I'm really surprised Christie went along with this. He's usually first to go against the tide of what the public may want. I guess it could win him some votes in the next election. Probably won't lose him any, since his supporters wouldn't not vote for him just because of this.

Yeah don't look too yummy. Kind of looks like something you'd see in a coroner's lab. LOL

Congratulations to her. Wow, they give scholarships for fencing?? I think I'd let myself be stabbed like a pin cushion by the entire fencing team if I could get my kid to get college for free.

Yes, the media can misguide people, but how does this apply to black peoples legitimate reasons for wanting to be democrats over republicans? As I said in my first reply, some of the reasons they want to be democrats is not exactly good, but if you still have white southerners wanting to display confederate flags and who don't think it's offensive to black people, then I don't think any media misguiding is really needed for blacks to want to be democrats. And I would hope that NO one here will try to convince me that the southern confederate flag wavers are members of todays democratic party. LOL

Just played it back. So what did he say in the last 2 minutes that doesn't make my prior statement true?

Wow, this stuff is funny. It seems like some people need to brush up on American history. So in the videos republicans claim that the southern democrats started the KKK. True in a way, but do any of you realize what party those old cruel southern democrats and their offspring belong to today?? I'll give you guys one guess. Maybe then you will figure out why most blacks are democrats these days. There are surely more reasons, some good and some bad, but this is definitely one important one.

Yeah, let's not even go there. I love it when they tell me that American vehicles are better, and then they tell me that the only thing they have replaced or fixed on it was at least a dozen different things in all of 5 years owning it, while I have yet to replace or fix ANYTHING on my Japanese vehicle in the almost 13 years that I have owned it other than tires, battery and front brake pads once.