jrm

I think you may live on the same street as me. Unless I have a guy just like that on my block too. I cringe every time I see it as it is a bad accident waiting to happen.

Interesting assumption... I never thought about it that way. I know several people who tow their ATVs upstate for the weekend. Almost none of them hunt. Those that do, don't use the ATVs for hunting. They tow their ATVs to ride on private land because there is nowhere to ride downstate. What I see as the joke is the towing. If you buy a locked shed and keep the ATVs upstate, insurance is much cheaper than keeping it in your downstate garage. Plus trailering costs more in gas and tolls. Add that to the initial cost of the trailer and it makes more sense to simply keep it where you ride it.

I originally thought power steering would be a waste of money... at the very least a gimmick. My current ATV (Can-Am Outlander) came with it. I really enjoy it. Can set the assist to low, medium or high. It makes for a much smoother ride. I also have a Polaris without power assist steering. It isn't necessarily "harder" to drive, just not as smooth as the Can-Am. Hard to explain. No drawbacks that I can see. Of course, it is one more thing that can break, so that is one potential down-side.

If you have no place to ride, I agree it could be a very expensive toy. I have about 30 acres with woods, hills and thick brush. My ATV cuts the field (drag behind rough cut mower). The mower also allows me to make trails through the brush. A tractor would make wider trails than I can make with the ATV. I have an attachment which also lets me drag the horse ring. A 1500b capacity dump wagon makes lugging firewood and materials easy. A tractor would be overkill for my needs (although I still would like one). It also couldn't get into some of the areas I need to access on my property (Stone walls, steep hills, thick growth). I was surprised at how useful these things can be. The side benefit is that the ATV is also fun to ride. I don't use it as much for "fun" since the novelty wore off, but my kids, nieces, nephews and friends who visit put plenty of hours on it. That's something you don't get with a tractor. It amazes me how much fun they can have driving that thing around. About the only thing where a tractor would beat the ATV - for MY needs - is a loader. However for the limited/infrequent loader needs, it is much more cost effective to rent a bobcat once every few years. YMMV.

FWIW, this is very old news. A few years back, there was a big story about this with the iPhone. There was an app you could download which would show your entire location history. Everywhere the phone went was recorded in the phone. Pretty creepy. Phones have GPS. They know where they are. The phone company knows where you are... they have to in order to route an incoming cell phone call to you. Every time you access a web page, send an email - anything online - your internet provider knows where you are. Every web page you access, every email you send or receive... your internet provider has complete access to all that information. It's the way the internet is designed and there's no avoiding it. (You could encrypt emails, but still cannot hide the sender and receiver information). Your credit card company has information about everything you purchase. If you have Ezpass, information on where you go and when you go there is all recorded. The only way to avoid this is to go off the grid. Not easy to do, but technically possible. You do need to be careful about what information you put out into any of these electronic information systems, but 99% of people's life is in one or more databases. There's no getting around it - it is a reality we have to learn to live with.

That a thought. Does that require a trapper license? I have a valid hunting license, so I assumed I was good to go with rifle or bow (but still wasn't sure if one was needed). I know that it is open season on woodchucks all year, but was under the impression you still needed a license to hunt 'em. If so, I figured that extended to trapping.

that makes sense. got it. Definitely didn't plan to stick my hands in there. Where is goes to chuck width is almost 3ft down. It's this mass excavation that has me wanting to evict this guy. Sticks will work. Thanks again.

Thanks. Will give it all a try. Not sure if the dry grass trick will work. There are two _large_ holes. The way the earth has sunk around the holes, they are now large gouges in the earth with a hole at the bottom. The gouge is large enough to stand in. It would take a bit a grass... maybe I can rig something up. I might set up my trail cam to get an idea of his schedule. It will be a few weeks before I can get up there... ideally before those young ones start running around. This is the first year I have had chucks in my field, and I don't want it to be the start of a population explosion. With the size of the holes they are digging, my dogs might chase one into the den or my horse could easily break a leg. I don't know if this one building his home around my septic tank will cause any other issues. Thanks much for the advice.

I was hoping to actually get something to show for my hunting license, and a fur cap seemed like a good trophy. Wanted to avoid things like smoke/gas. Thanks for the other tips. I tried some of those without success, but I think weather was against me. It was windy and cold most of the time, so that may have kept him underground longer. Won't have a chance again for a few weeks, hopefully with better luck.

I've got one that took up residence around my septic tank. The holes are dangerous - big enough to fall into. I have seen the resident only once or twice, never when I am ready. Any tips on getting these buggers to come up out of their holes?

You are right on both counts. It makes sense to keep the decisions based on scientific principles... but then the change would give state game managers unchecked power. The answer is in the system itself. This is exactly the problem that our representative system of government is meant to solve. "Majority Rules" is not how things are done. Elected representatives are supposed to reject the emotional pleas and make the "smart" decisions based on facts. Looks like the proposal will allow legislators to shirk their responsibilities by passing the buck. They are absolved of responsibility and can court the votes of hunters and non-hunters alike. Regardless of how good or well-intentioned state game managers may be, they are appointed, not elected officials and should not be writing or passing laws. Their job should be to give the legislators the information necessary to make a decision.

Actors, musicians, celebrities... I wonder why anyone cares about their opinion. What makes them qualified to speak out on ANY issue? I am willing to bet that many of these people can barely pass a literacy exam. Those that could are either so burned out on drug/booze or live a life so far removed from reality that they have no clue what it is like to live in the real world. There is something very wrong with our country that a vote could be swayed by which candidate some mediocre musician or actor likes.

The problem is that "you can't fix stupid." Put another way, when something is made idiot-proof, they simply invent a better idiot. Favor education over law? I agree completely. Many in the gun community promote "education." Everyone I know who owns/uses guns preaches and practices gun safety. Groups like the one being discussed want to make this "education" mandatory - i.e. law. Their end game is elimination of guns. They get there by pushing for mandatory "education" and "safety" measures, hiding behind a "it's for the kids" mantra. They get that and then push for more. Didn't CT enact stricter laws after Sandy Hook? They got that and are now pushing the goal post further down the field. They are playing a game of inches. Make a "common sense" gun law... there is still an idiot (or criminal) who will circumvent that law. So they make more laws, which some idiot circumvents, so they make more laws, ad infinitum. It is a never ending circle which helps no one and only serves to erode the rights of the 99.999% gun owners who ARE responsible. If the same type of "common sense" lawmaking was applied to automobiles, they would all be outlawed. At the very least, we would be driving in large inflated safety balloons that could not exceed 5mph. There is no such thing as "gun violence." People commit violent acts. Inanimate objects do not. Once you fall to the logical fallacy of "gun violence," the only complete solution is the elimination of all guns.

As has been pointed out, it will be hit or miss. I have purchased pistol caliber ammo at "big box" stores where I was grilled for a pistol license. Sometimes their policy (or understanding of the policy) requires a license be shown. Other times, they allow the purchase when explaining it is for a long gun. This hasn't come up for me since safe went into effect - I don't know how this may affect the way stores deal with this. There is nothing in the law to prevent the sale. It is store policy, which can vary by store and even within a store.

Whoa! That point was not proven at all. What you are saying is: 1. Kid plays call of duty. The black rifle in the game kills hundreds of make-believe "people" easily and all kid gets is a sore thumb from pressing a button too many times. 2. Same kid now runs out to buy an AR because it looks like the rifle in the game, and it would be "really cool" to kill hundreds of real people with no moral or legal repercussions (just like in the game!)Can't wait to be a mass-murderer! The logic train has completely derailed. Someone made a comment which stereotyped and generalized AR owners as rambo wannabes. You added to that by stating hunters using ARs creates a bad image for hunters in general. I don't see how anything regarding video games relates back to either point - it is a different topic altogether. Are you now suggesting that video game violence is the cause of mass-shootings? I don't agree with that premise. Nor do see how it has any relation to the AR's use as a hunting rifle. You brought up Call of Duty as an example of the AR getting a bad image among those who play the game. I only pointed out that those who play the game are less likely to se an AR and freak out like most people's who's only exposure to guns is "Terminator" and "CNN." Help me out please. Is your point: 1. the AR is not a "good" choice for hunting? 2. the AR is not a "proper" choice for hunting? 3. the AR is only for police and military use? 4. people who use ARs are a "little off" 5. ARs are a poor choice, so is us purchased by unknowledgeable people only because they want to look "cool" 6. use of ARs in hunting are a big reason why some people have a problem with hunting/hunters? 7. Video games are the cause/a main contributor to violent crime? 8. None of the above - "Responsibility" is the point you are making. You have either stated. seemed to agree with or strongly implied most of the above points in this thread. The discussion continues to drift. What are you actually trying to say?

Isn't it the magazine that is built for 5 or 10 or 20 or 100? The rifle is just built to accept a magazine, regardless of size. Or are you suggesting that AR hunters are not only rambo wanabess, but lean towards the AR because they are unethical and seek to circumvent game laws? The reasons already given in this thread shoot down both mischaracterizations. I also see plenty of websites promoting the usefulness of .223 ARs for coyote/predator hunting. Jumping around a bit here, but I'll bite. Let's skip the part where playing "Call of Duty" has little bearing to real world firearm usage. I would bet that "most of the population" has not played Call of Duty at all, let alone consider it substitution for real knowledge on ARs. Clearing a jam with the "x+y+ up button combo" doesn't count to me as knowing specs and capabilities. The call of duty 20-somethings I see would look at a real AR and say "cool!" It is my aunt (literally) who would be intimidated by an AR and ask "why would anyone need that baby killing machine." Following your logic, the CoD crowd would be LESS inclined towards an "image" problem with people using an AR. So yes, I still say that "most of the population" being shown a picture of a hunter with a hunting AR (rifle + scope, no fancy attachments/customization) would not realize they are looking at "an evil assault weapon" unless a) they have been closely following Diane Fienstein and believe the crap she is spewing or someone like Diane Fienstein pointed to the rifle in the picture and "educated" them to the "evils" of scary, black, baby-killing, mass-murdering assault weapons that only police and military should be able to possess.

I've felt that way about every gun I purchased. My "coolest" looking gun is my Winchester '73 reproduction. Who ever purchased a gun because they thought it was "ugly." Aesthetics is a factor in most things we buy. "Hey friend, c'mon over and see the new gun I got. Isn't it the ugliest thing you ever saw? I'm embarrassed to leave the house with it! But it was expensive and not very accurate, so i just had to buy it." I don't think so. Liking the look/feel of a gun is a far cry from your original "rambo wannabe" assertion.

I don't see what the south has do to with NY hunting or NYer perception towards ARs. In NY, certainly downstate, camo is not regarded as "normal" wear. At the same time, if more people wore camo, it would be considered normal. Just as if more people were aware how much the AR is used for hunting it wouldn't be considered an anomaly. I agree that self defense and hunting are not the same. That does not mean one tool cannot do both jobs well. Carpentry, electric and plumbing are all very different things. The same screwdriver is just as valid to all three. To be clear, I didn't label you as anything. I am merely disagreeing with your assertions as to the "image" presented. Let's take the image you posted earlier - included again here. Based on what you wrote - you are seeing a perfectly normal photo of a hunter, who unfortunately is holding "the same gun a marine uses to kill bad guys with" The anti-gun or anti-hunter sees something very different. They see "a gun" - not a military gun, not a scary gun, just an implement of destruction. The reason they don't see the gun as a "military" gun is because they are too busy seeing: - the pickup truck... must be one of those dirty rednecks - the TWO poor dead defenseless bambi he murdered in cold blood. Why TWO! The horror! We need bag limits! - The military outfit he is wearing. Must be a rambo type. (Note that the average person does not differenciate between hunter camo and military camo). - The evil grin. He is HAPPY he is a murderer! Must be a psycho practicing for a mass kill. If they do look at the gun, they will likely only notice that evil sniper scope. After all, only snipers and mass killers need scopes, right? I see where you are coming from. Just completely disagree. In hunting applications, I think the general public has no idea what type of rifle they are looking at. They only see the dead animals and a redneck with a pickup truck. By your logic, we would be better of with no photos of hunter at all. Any one can of them can be used to cast hunters and gun owners in a negative light. In fact, I don't think most of the population would know they are looking at a typical hunting AR (without all the bling features) unless Dianne Fienstien or Cuomo was holding it up and explaining "this is an evil AW" There is need for discretion at times. I just don't see this as one of them. The AR is going to be considered "evil" whether it is used for hunting or not. Using it for hunting only seems to be a problem with some hunters (at least in this thread). Who is making the argument that ARs are bad because they are used in hunting - or that hunting is bad simply because hunters use ARs? Take the AR "underground" and it is easier to ban as a non-common use rifle. Once that battle is won, all semi-autos are next. Then they come for the bolt actions. As some point you are stuck defending the only weapons - assault sticks and assault rocks.

I kind of see where you are coming from, but do not agree. The type/color/style of a gun that a hunter uses is a non-factor in the "image" campaign. Anti-hunting groups attack the activity - I don't see any active campaigns to attack specific tools within that activity. One could easily argue the exact opposite. Those who claim "you don't need xxx to kill a deer" would no longer be able to use that argument if it was demonstrated that a large number of hunters actually use these type of guns. I believe the gun-grabber arguments are _enhanced_ and strengthened by actual hunters who tell these politicians "you don't need that gun for hunting - real hunters don't use those - only rambo types use them. Using your logic for concerned about society's reaction, there are better things we can do... - stop wearing camo in public. All you "crazy deer killers" scare me. - take those NRA bumper stickers off your car. I'm afraid you are on your way to a mass-shooting - take those hunting related stickers off your truck. I'm afraid you have a loaded machine gun in the back seat and a dead animal in the truck bed. My kid is traumatized by your "Bone Collector" sticker. - stop wearing those scary shirts with "Browning" logos and "redneck" caps with Remington logos. - eliminate hunting departments from Wal-Mart - only rednecks and white-trash shop there, so it makes hunters look bad I'm being facetious on the above points. However, every one of those has a MUCH higher public visibility factor than they type of gun someone is using in the field. I'll agree that driving the Thruway with a bloody deer strapped to the hood is not good public relations. But hunting with a pistol grip rifle, or black rifle isn't an issue to me. Those that take exception to the photo will find more fault with the bloody hole in the side of the dead bambi, the smile on the hunter's face and the "military camo outfit" than they will with the color of the gun. (edited for typos)

Wow. Are you guys serious, or are you kidding? I bought a bow for hunting. Mine is black. I simply liked the way it looked better than that camo version. Does that make me a kook in the woods? Get it in black and you want to be rambo, but get it in camo and you are a "normal" responsible hunter? Talk about stereotyping and division within the gun community. This is the kind of absurd thinking that gets "black" rifles classified as AWs which only "nutjob preppers" want to own. Guess what... after they collect all those "scary black rifles" from the crazy "rambo" guys, they are coming for your "bambi murdering" camo rifles, "wild west shootout" wood stocks and "lightweight/easy to transport to crime scene" synthetic stocks. A divided gun community is a problem. "No one needs xxx to kill a deer" is the mentality the gun-grabbers use to divide us. Guess what... you don't NEED to kill a deer at all. When all that's left is what a small group believes is "appropriate" for hunting, all they need to do is eliminate hunting and they have an excuse to take away everything else.

If you plan to buy ammo in CT make sure you have th CT card allowing you to do so. Not allowed to buy without it. PA is still fine.

It would be great is the SP actually approved the ARMR2 device. Any way that store could post the letter online? Are you saying that it is approved? Or approved for a hunting application? I don't see how approval only for hunting would be within the SP authority.

That's what I have read as well. There are also supposed to be retailers selling ARs with modified "compliant" stocks. The ARMR2 people were trying to get something in writing, but nothing ever materialized. While several lawyers have claimed it meets the legal definition to remove the AW classification, this is not a decided issue. If an officer wanted to claim the a maglock did not count towards compliance - and you truly believed it did (which we have every reason to) - the law allows for a "warning" in which you will then have 30 days to register. Of course, an over-zealous or under-informed officer could confiscate the rifle and/or arrest you for having an unregistered AW. Then you get to fight it out in court and possibly never see your rifle again. If it is returned, you might have to wait a year or more. How this all plays out for an out-of-state resident is even more questionable. Since you are not a resident you could not have possessed the rifle in NY prior to "safe" taking effect. Thus, you are (in the officer's mind) importing a banned weapon into the state. Confiscation and/or arrest seems more likely. I truly believe items like the ARMR2 are fully compliant with the law, taking the rifle out of the AW classification. What really matters is what the police, DA and judge think. Recent history doesn't make me feel good that they will agree with my position, and would attempt to re-imagine the law.. My opinion is that any "black" rifle should be used as discreetly as possible. No need to put it to the test, especially since the system is designed for us to lose. No decision is sometimes better than a decision of no.

Two things at play. One - many of us are born downstate. We move for the same reason many people move (job, retirement, not wanting to live in a congested area). Upstate NY provides an opportunity for a different setting, while still maintaining a close distance to family, friends and "known" areas. Two - The "so many" observation is relative. Downstate is very populated. An example: Suffolk County population is 1.5 million. Delaware County population is 46,700 If one half of one percent have move out of Suffolk, that would be a 16% increase to Delaware County. I have met people upstate who came from a town 1 mile from where I am on LI. We don't know any of the same people. We may as well be from two different states. However, in the rare instance I meet someone on LI who is from the same _county_ as I am upstate, we generally have at least one common acquaintance. It's all relative. Holy cow, that's a lot more work than I imagined. I have no idea how my neighbor is doing all this as a part-time resident. Think I will wait until I retire and raise beef cattle.

If the rifle meets the "safe" act definition of an AW, you cannot legally posses it in NY. The only way it would be legal is if you possessed it prior to the law taking effect and then registered it prior to the deadline. As a NH resident, I don't believe registration was possible. An option might be to modify it so no longer meets NYs definition of an AW.. then modify it back to original condition when you get back to NH. Basically the law is designed to get rid of these rifles for good. Current owners were able register. However, they cannot sell, transfer or even pass to the heirs within NYS. There is no way to bring such a rifle. This is my understanding of the law. It is not legal advice and is worth what you paid for it.