jrm

Ahh, now it makes sense. I didn't think of hinge cutting as "baiting." I read the original post as "legal to feed deer while cutting trees and brush" as opposed to "legal to cut trees and brush even if doing so creates a food source from those trees and brush." Thanks for the clarification.

I was really surprised the first time I saw this kind of thing being sold. It does seem strange that you can sell it, buy it and possess it. You just can't use it for the purpose stated on the packaging. I am not pro-baiting, but the above suggestion is disturbing. DEC checkpoints? Sting operations? Under the current law, this product is legal to buy, sell and own. Should the police do the same for gun and/or ammo purchases? Why not sit outside home depot and do the same for hammer purchases? After all, these products are capable of being used for illegal purposes. The regular checkpoints for seat belt and paperwork checks are already too much. Could you explain what #4 means? The rest are self-explanatory. I don't understand the reasoning for being able to feed deer while cutting trees/brush. Which is the part of the problem. Right now, the contents of the bag are not illegal. The marketing/packaging is wrong as they are promoting that the product be used for an illegal purpose. That's like selling a bottle of Vodka as something that will make a good driving experience (although if anyone did that, there would be an outcry against it). If there was a legal move to remove these products from the shelves, they would simply reappear with different packaging. It is probably impossible, and at least inadvisable, to regulate the sale of corn. It still seems odd, however, that stores are able to sell a product (however legal) with packaging that clearly promotes an illegal activity.

For fishing, you can purchase a one-day or seven day instead of an annual license. http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6091.html

In the hypothetical situation, he'd still be buying the license so it would allow an "assist." It just wouldn't allow him to take a deer because he doesn't have a tag. Same situation as if you already filled your tag. You can still accompany and assist other hunter. At least, that's what the DEC states:

Good link. I never came across that one and it will be helpful. There does seem to be a potentially misleading statement on the page. It discusses firearms season in Suffolk County. It also mentions that Crossbows are no longer legal in NYS as of December 2012. Apparently is hasn't been updated to reflect the new crossbows rule. However, even though crossbows are now being allowed in NY, this does NOT apply to Suffolk. You can not crossbow hunt on Long Island. I point this out as someone reading the page will see the 2012 rule reference. Then, they might read elsewhere how the crossbow restriction was lifted in 2014 and mistakenly believe it also covers Suffolk. Also remember when discussing discharge distance from a dwelling... those distances do NOT apply to your own buildings or buildings where you have permission to discharge.

Except for the DMP, the tag comes with the license. So if you need the license, you get the tag whether you plan to use it or not. In the case where your deer tag is filled, you are correct. The license then only allows you to assist in a hunt (including driving) but you may not harvest deer. In practical terms, this means you do not want to have a gun or bow with you. Fishing - not my thing. My understanding has always been that you need a license for every "pole in the water." So if you are with your grandson and there is only one fishing pole you would need only one fishing license. The DEC licensing page states: "Required to catch/harvest freshwater fish species during the regulated freshwater fishing seasons." It would seem that the definition of fishing is different than that of hunting. I could be wrong - again, fishing is not my thing. edited to add: Look at the DEC fess page. Fishing license fees apply to ages 16+. There is no mention of a license fee for a 14 year old. It is possible that is free. If so, I would imagine you would need a license to accompany him while fishing. If not, that would be a big loophole for people avoiding license fees.

"2) So, why can't I just buy a mentoring license without buying a tag?" Because they don't sell it that way. "3) If my grandson buys a deer management permit... (Doe tag) do I need too buy a doe tag too..?" I would guess not. All the rules say is that you need a license. You would only need the tag if you are taking a doe. "4) I was asking about the concept of a mentor license. I buy my grandsons big game license so now it's $44, plus $10 for the doe tag. An oh yea, he wants to get into archery. We both need a bow hunting license. Small game... Yes the law requires us both to hold a current license. Heck,,,,he wants turkey tags too. I need turkey tags too. We might go duck hunting. He does not need a $15 duck stamp but I do." Here's where you have me confused. You mentioned your grandson is 14. So his hunting license is only $5. Bowhunting is another $4, so that's a total of $9 - not $44. Also, the DMP is free for ages 12-15. Your license would cost $22 for the base big-game license. (Or $5, with free bowhunting if you are over 70) You only need a bowhunting privilege to hunt in the "special" bowhunting season. If you are in rifle season, you can hunt with a bow using the "regular" hunting license. You still need a bowhunter safety class certificate - you just don't need to buy the extra "privilege." This is for ages 14 and up, so it applies to your grandson too. So his license, including a DMP would only be $9 if you plan on taking him hunting during bow season and only $5 if only hunting during rifle season. ​Your license would be $37 with bow included and $22 if not including bow privilege. Total cost for BOTH of you would be between $27 and $46, depending on if you are hunting during special bow season or not. That includes the (free) DMP for your grandson. Fees are listed here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/95007.html On the turkey permit and duck stamp... I wonder. It is an interesting question. You would already have the hunting license and are not "hunting" (in the sense that you are not attempting to harvest anything). If the license is actually a "tag" I would think it is not needed. (Not needed for the "mentor" but still needed for the actual "hunter.") If the license is something which provides the permission to hunt that species, I would guess it is needed. This is my guess and maybe someone else has more direct experience with this issue. The best place to get a real answer on this is probably the DEC field office in the area you hunt (get the name of who you speak with). They are the one who will enforce things in your area, so their interpretation is what counts. ​edited to add: Seems you would both need the Turkey permit. DEC has a reference on the site which states "To hunt turkey, all hunters must purchase a turkey permit. There are no exceptions."

I don't know... I would like to hear from the other Larrys (#2-301) to make sure I have all the facts.

According the that article, the only party promoting or discussing commercial hunting is the author. There is no reference to any state agency considering the practice, although that is what the author is calling for.

Hi Dawn. If you haven't taken it already, get enrolled in one of the DEC Hunter Safety courses. It is required to obtain a hunting license. As the season gets closer, the classes tend to fill up quickly. It is a good idea to get that done asap. There is a separate course for bowhunting which is required if you want to hunt with a bow. Some places offer hunter+bow in one class, but that is hard to find. for more info see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/92267.html

We are talking about the same thing - junior hunters. From 12-15 you are a junior and need a "mentor." At 16 you are an "adult" and don't. Where I was off is that that for 12-13, the "mentor" is required to have purchased 3 years of hunting licences, where form 14-15 the "mentor" only needs the one prior hunting license. Yes, the hunter safety course is probably better than nothing. My experience definitely jaded me on that course. Some information I have seen given could get someone killed other information could get people arrested. I can only conclude that the course system is broken. I was very disappointed and a little worried at what they "taught." Let's say the course is a "good" one and that getting a license is how to prove you took it. Fine. There is still room to have a "Free" non-hunting license issued. That idea was raised earlier and makes sense. Exactly. Doc's mention of the hunting rules implies a certain interpretation. From what I can see, the DEC interprets them with a little more common sense. From the DEC website - first question in their own FAQ section: **** Q: Can I take my young child (or an unlicensed person) with me while I am deer hunting? A: Yes, and we highly recommend it! Just make sure the child (or unlicensed person) is not hunting or assisting in any aspect of the hunt (like driving deer). Bring an extra pair of binoculars and plenty of snacks. Have a good time! **** They make it clear that an unlicensed, non-hunting person can accompany a hunter. They even "highly" recommend it! Of course they cannot hunt and yes, that means more that simply having a bow/gun. They, however, are actually encouraged to bring snacks and binoculars. So if they are looking through those binoculars and see a deer, is it illegal to tell the hunter about it? Spotting prey would be "assisting" the hunter, yet it seems the activity is actually encouraged by the DEC. A strict reading of "any act of assistance" could mean holding that DEC suggested bag of snacks so the hunter can draw his bow. Of course, this is not the case. I can see a benefit in wanting a responsible adult to supervise a 12-15 year old while hunting. I simply disagree that forcing the adult to pay for 1-3 years of hunting licenses does anything more than generate money for the state. If "safety" is the reason and the word "mentor" is being used, a real qualification process should be in place. As it stands now, it is simply a money grab. -- fat fingers and autocorrect do not work well together.

You don't want me to get out the door today with an empty email inbox. How is my post silly? I think the rules are silly. If I am in the field supervising an experienced, safe, licensed 15 year old, I am "hunting" and need a license. If I am in the field with a licensed 16 year old who knows nothing about hunting or guns, then I am not hunting and don't need a license. Sorry if I don't "see the light" on that one. "Mentoring" is also not properly used in the context of this discussion (or the DEC). All it means according to the rules is "adult supervision." It allows a completely unqualified individual to "mentor" a kid. No training, No qualification. Pay $22 and you too can be a "mentor." At least have the honesty to call it "babysitter" rather than throw around a false title like "mentor." Edited to correct: A "mentor" needs "3 years hunting experience" according to DEC. SO actually it is $66 to be a mentor. Again, no real experience or knowledge is needed. You just have to purchase a hunting license for at least 3 years. That is why we don't see eye to eye. I think the above rules do not make sense and have much room for improvement. You think the above rules make sense and that your position somehow makes me look "silly." I can live with that. I do not represent anyone. The OP question was answered a while back. This is now just you and I disagreeing. We are not going to change each other's position, no less the rules, so its nothing more than an amusing way to fill time between answering client emails.

Principle being violated: Not hunting but being forced to purchase a license with deer tag. After 15 years old, the "mentor" doesn't need a license. At 15 he does. Aside from a required corse, neither party needs to be qualified at anything nor needs to be an experienced hunter. There is no real "safety" goal being achieved by the licensing process. It is a valid point to question. Some may agree with this setup, some may not. I see it as arbitrary, you do not. I already pointed out some avenues for affecting a change in the rules. This forum is not a direct line to the DEC or legislative process, so I guess your point is that any question or comment posted here is a "gripe." When trying to change something, asking others about it, finding out if others support your position or rallying others to your cause is all complaining? I don't agree, but that's one way to look at it. The OP mistakenly assumed that this forum would be a good place to get information about a rule for which he didn't understand the reasoning. He thought that folks more experienced with the rule making process could provide some insight or justification. Instead, he got bashed for it. Seems par for the course around here. "Why" is not a dirty word - especially when it is applied to the government. Fortunately for me, I am stopping work early today. That means I do not have to sit in front of my computer any longer to be tempted by email alerts for this thread. I really, really surrender this time. You win.

Seriously? What does that have to do with anything? Although I already surrendered... I buy a license for the same reason the OP does - because it's the law. I also wear a seatbelt. I stop at a stop sign in the middle of nowhere with no cars/people around. I do many things which make no practical sense because it is the law. That doesn't mean I agree with every law/rule. That doesn't mean I am willing to speak out when I think a law/rule should be changed. I was taught to question the government - they don't always do things right. Nor do they always do things for the right reasons. Are you happy with every single law, regulation and rule that exists? Have you never questioned a single rule/law that has been implemented. Or do you just follow the rules you agree with? One place we will agree... this thread has gone on too long and should have been closed down a while ago. All it accomplished was potentially running off a new forum participant.

Whether you do it intentionally or not, it seems I have a real problem making myself understood to you. I surrender. I guess there is no principle involved with handing money over to the state just because they want it. Feel free to keep giving and never asking "why?". Feel free to write Albany and complain about proposed decreases in license fees. More is better, right? If the government says it is right, it must be right.

If the licensed person is 16 or older, the accompanying party doesn't need a license as long at they do not assist in the hunt (including driving deer). Thanks for bringing this up. It is not entirely clear from this thread that the licensing requirement for an accompanist only applies to junior hunters (12-15). If I send you the list of mentors will you pay the $22 for all of them? When it is about the principle, who pays the money doesn't make a difference. Again, no one complained about affording the $22 - which is simply another money grab by the state. The OP actually noted he buys the license - the only question is to the reasoning behind it. I stand behind my original answer - it is a revenue stream the state will not give up. Qualification is a non-issue. What are the qualifications now? All you have to do is have a hunting license which means you took the safety course. I have been to a safety course where quite a bit of wrong - and even lethally wrong - information was provided. People who took that information at face value would likely kill or hurt the person they are mentoring. You would take the same course with a "free" mentor license system, so you would be equally as safe/dangerous as the person who paid for a license. There will always be people who lie. There are surely people who already hunt without a license. That is no reason to penalize the honest people.

Who says the original question (which was a valid one) has anything to do with $22? Sometimes it is the principal. Either way, the OP never claimed to have any problem spending the money or getting the license. The question was the reasoning behind it. So it actually seems that the state is the one being petty by wanting to milk (tax) an extra $22 out of an already overtaxed person. You make a big unsubstantiated assumption regarding the cost of such a program. I don't see how the printing of a small card ends up being a fiscal nightmare. If these programs are so costly to administer, why not just raise the license fee to $30 or $35? Heck, that "just" another few dollars, right? Why should anyone be concerned about that - just pay the money, its for a "good" cause. At least that's what the "just pay the $22" crowd should be saying.

I did not deny your point. As I wrote, it is a valid argument and I don't think there is one answer that covers all situations. No reason to create conflict where there is none. The original question was regarding deer hunting. When you purchase a "big game" license, you receive a deer tag(s) regardless of what you actually hunt. Duck hunters receive a deer tag with their NY license. Mentors who guide their grandson on a hunt receive a deer tag. If tags issued vs tags reported are used as any sort of metric, the information is skewed. More information on tags can be found on the DEC website. The information there is pretty clear.

There seems to be quite a bit for sale in Delaware County. Seems like every road I am on has a fair number of "for sale" signs. I came across a few "private road" situations over the years. Even when they start out reasonable, they have the potential to turn into big problems. When expensive work needs to be done, people don't always agree. As a general rule, I would agree to say to stay away from these situations. It is to a large degree a buyer's market up there. No need to "settle" for a situation which could become a problem. Also watch for deed restrictions. You would be amazed at some of the restrictions placed on land. Finally, know if the parcel is in the watershed area. There are pros and cons to that (I actually think it has many advantage). Either way, you should know what that means and how it may impact what you plan to do with the property.

The "current experience" argument isn't a necessarily valid one. The ONLY requirement for a hunting license is that you took a hunter safety course sometime in your life. You could have taken it last week, you could have taken it 40 years ago. Even at that, the course itself can range from "highly informative" to "a waste of time" to "a place to get bad information." I speak from experience. The test is a joke. Like most state standardized tests, scan the reading material for five minutes and you can pass. Spend more than five and you can ace it. Let's say someone hasn't hunted in 40 years and wants to accompany a grandchild. Let's go even further and say that person shouldn't be hunting at all, no less mentoring. How does the purchase of a license make the situation any more safe? It doesn't. I get that hunting is considered a "privilege." For that privilege we pay a fee to the state and receive a piece of paper that says the state allows us to hunt. There are people who have been hunting for 40 years. There are also people who have been hunting for one year forty times. Both can pay the same fee and receive the same license. Safety/skill has nothing to do with it. The license is simply about revenue generation. The argument over whether an accompanist is hunting or not is a valid one. There are two sides to that and both have their pros and cons. I'm not sure if there is an answer which would cover every situation. With only one hunter in the party, there would still be the question of the addition tags which serve no purpose. I don't know how DEC complies their statistics, but it would seem there is a potential to skew the numbers if enough non-hunting "mentors" are out there with tags they have no intention of using.

You don't. (Or you shouldn't - you do because the state says you do). It is just that the fees provide a source of revenue the state is not willing to give up. After the initial "road test" which is issued once in a lifetime, the driver license serves no driving related purpose - it does not indicate ability or skill level. It only shows you paid money to receive a card with your name and photo on it.

You have a valid point. The trick now is getting enough similar minded people to band together and push for a change in the rules. It is entirely possible. Another path to explore is the possibility of "one day" licenses. They have them for fishing, why not hunting? S mentioned, get involved with a hunting group. They can help you and also let you know the political realities of perusing such a goal. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You need one because it is the law. That is the technically correct answer to the question you asked. I think you many have meant something like "what is the reasoning behind this rule." The answer to that is most likely because "they have the power to do it" and it generates more income. Join a sportsman's organization and get involved. Write (respectful) letters to the DEC and state officials. A mentor program is a good idea. If enough people ask for it they might consider it.

You are 100% correct, but I don't believe that politics should even be mentioned in the same context. I have a variety of interests and read a lot of message boards. Been doing so since well before forums like this existed (is was called USENET and was the precursor of web forums). Doesn't matter what the topic is. People will argue it. Mac vs PC, Ford vs. Chevy, the "right" was to do [insert any activity here]. The anonymity of the internet is what makes it worse. Many seemed more inclined to talk trash when they can hide behind a handle and don't have to deal face to face. Even if not "hiding" it does seem much easier to be rude when you don't have to look someone in the face to do it. I have quit several forums over the years because the site degraded into third-grade playground behavior. I was active on a forum a few years ago where a certain topic became the subject of intense debate. One "side" actually planned a strategy in a separate forum to bring in "ringers" - they coordinated posts and "verbally" attacked people who were on the other side of their issue. It was _ugly_. I remember reading PMs from new forum members who were afraid to ask a question because they might get ripped apart. To play in the internet playground you need a thick skin. That still doesn't excuse rude behavior or personal attacks. Negativity can grow and become the death of a good forum. There is some BS that happens here (and at least some of it would be easy to stop), but it is still very tame compared to much of what I have seen elsewhere.

I don't see how you make the leap that a forum (privately owned and operated) decision is "big government" control. There are many areas where politics overlap hunting concerns. Hunting in NY is entirely political - all the laws, seasons, rules, etc. are defined and regulated by state agencies. The beauty of internet forums is that they are (or can be) very targeted niche media. They can be defined to serve a certain interest rather than a broader general market. It is up to the site owners/operators to decide how specific they want their focus. There are (arguably better) places to discuss gun rights and political issues. That doesn't mean they have no place or relevance here. There are dozens of issues that could be considered important to hunters/hunting - that doesn't mean they should or should not be the focus of this forum. I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I don't mind the political posts and don't mind them in the "new posts" feed. If I see something that interests me, I read it. If not, I don't. No big deal. That said, I do come here for hunting related information. I consider myself fairly well informed on political issues, especially as they relate to guns in NY State. For that, however, I am more reliant on other information sources which are focused on those topics.