jrm

Amazon has them - $5 http://www.amazon.com/Pole-Jointed-Cane-3pc-T143/dp/B0007RPI8A/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1427032042&sr=8-15&keywords=bamboo+fishing+pole

So, those sneaky Fish and Game people have invented some magical device that can figure out who made the call. Now that this high-tech government secret is out of the bag, I wonder if the "caller id" magic will ever trickle down to us regular people. What crazy things will those government think-tanks come up with next? Seriously - this is the kind of person you are dealing with. Anyone who calls themselves in and thinks they will not get caught because they say "this is anonymous" is obviously a confirmed half-wit. Maybe she also wore a ski mask when she made the call so they couldn't identify her face? Or wore a shirt when she committed the crime with "this is someone else" printed on the front.

So true. My February plow bill just came. Close to $500. Plow had to come eight times. At one point, the driveway was so bad, there was no where to move the snow. Had to get a bobcat in to move snow out... too much for the plow. There were 8 ft walls on the side of the driveway. Taxes, electric, propane, maintenance. It adds up. A guy down the road planned on retiring to his place upstate. The place ended up going into foreclosure and was sold at auction. His retirement portfolio had problems and he couldn't afford the upkeep. bad situation. On the other hand, if you work the numbers and can afford it... it's a great situation.

I have been trying to look into this although I think I am under the minimums. From what I have read, it doesn't seem possible to get the ag exemption when you aren't the farmer. People tell me different, but I can't find anything to support those claims. In addition to acreage, there is also a minimum revenue from ag operation - I think it was about $10k. So unless you lease your land to a farmer for >10k/year you might not qualify. Also, there are penalties if ag operations cease, with a 5-year claw-back. So if that farmer lease falls through inside of 5 years, you could be subject to back taxes and interest. It also seems the tax benefit only applies to the portion of land used for ag purposes. If 50% of the land is farmed, discount is only applied to 50% of the land. If the amount of land is big enough, I am sure it pays off. I think if you are right around the minimums, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. This is what it LOOKS LIKE TO ME (not presenting this as fact). I have heard different conflicting stories from people who should know the real answers. The NYS website has some info, but it is written in "tax code," not regular english. Land cost is going to vary, although I think you should be able to get acreage in the $2,000/acre range. Depends on so many things... utility access, views, location, topography, resources. A neighbor in Delaware County had 50 acres listed for 102k about 2 years back. I think she lowered the price about 10% and it sold. Absolutely gorgeous piece of land, with great views and decent hunting. Meanwhile, other vacant pieces in the surrounding area have been on the market for a long time with no sales. If you are a cash buyer, there are deals. Someone mentioned looking at auctions... another great source of deals. Either way, watch out. You want to make sure you can build what you want. You want to make sure you can place a septic system where you want it. Water availability is another factor. Watch out for deed restrictions. Some people have a "no hunting" restriction onto deed. Buying vacant land is much different than buying land with a house. If you pay $50k for 50 acres it may sound like a good deal. But if it costs you an extra $30,000 to put in a septic system and you have to revise your home building plans, and then the building site means electric service will cost and extra $10,000 to install... things can add up real quick. Taxes are also a big factor. NYS hits you hard with property and school. That is a recurring annual fee forever. Like they say... you don't own anything in the U.S., you merely rent it from the government. Stop paying and they take it back. Same thing on auctions... find out if there are any tax liens on the property that have to be settled to get clear title.

Beekeeping is fascinating to me but I know nothing at all about it. I have heard of a pert-time resident neighbor of mine getting some hive, so I have to think it is a relatively low maintenance activity (as opposed to something like livestock where someone needs to be around all the time) Which leads me to a dumb question... what happens in the winter? I did some looking online and they talk about doing a few things for the hives. But in a winter like this, there are 8ft son drifts on my property. Do the hive survive being "buried" in snow? Or do they have to be moved for the winter? How does that work?

So she is going to sue because a video she posted on the internet is being played on the internet? Sounds like a valid legal plan. Makes sense as she wasn't smart enough to disable imbedding of her video in the first place. Do people really think YouTube is a "private" video storage device? Anyone know where to see this? As of right now, the video is unavailable with a 'user account deleted' message.

Yes and no. The actual policy depends on the company. Some companies have eliminated President's Day as a paid day off. However, they have replaced it with a "personal" day off. Much of the reason behind this is due to the "diversity" which is behind the policy which started this thread. Certain holidays are set. Christmas, New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, etc. Then there are a set number of "personal" days which the employee can take. Celebrate Yom Kippur? Take that day off. Celebrate All Saint's Day? Take that instead. Celebrate nothing at all? Take whatever day you like. That's how it works in all the large corporations I deal with. It is a good point, but the "days off" thing is not only cemented in tradition it is also a "supply and demand" issue. Just like health plans, retirement benefits, stock options, etc., vacation time, sick days and holiday/personal days are part of the employment package. Some have better packages to hopefully attract better applicants. To the original point. I don't see what the big issue is. This is no different than in any NY public school I have attended or been involved with. A quick look at the calendar of a local, large LI school district: http://www.halfhollowhills.k12.ny.us/page.cfm?p=977737 They have "Christmas" recess (separate from "Winter" recess") and "Easter" recess (NOT Spring Break). The also observe the three big Jewish holy days. As the population of that district is primarily Christian and Jewish, this makes perfect sense. No one in the school is making anyone perform a religious service... they are simply closing on those days, as they have done for as long as I can remember.

Thanks for the compliment and for taking it in the friendly way it was intended. I also hope I am right, for both our sakes. In case I am wrong, it may be a good time to look at Mexico... set up a "hosting" service across the border for those looking to avoid the over-regulation. I hear Mexican officials are much less expensive than their American counterparts.

Not looking to start an argument, as I don't necessarily disagree with your arguments. But just to play devi's advocate... The issue is funded by big money on both sides of the fence. I don't see this as a right/left issue at all. It is a matter of which politician was bought by which company and their lobbyist. " *The entire wide - world web is reclassified under Title II of the Communications Act. *Fixed and mobile broadband world wide web applications are now classified as a telecommunications service, and as such providers will be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act just as land line telephone service was in the past. " So far, this doesn't sound like a very bad thing. The approach has some pros and some cons. " *While the full implantation make take years, the Trojan horse of for internet censorship is in place " I guess you could say that about anything, but it still seems like a stretch. No one is "moving the internet" into a government building where bureaucrats will sit there and review your email before it gets to its destination. " *Website owners will eventually be required to be licensed by the government. " A real stretch. Even if such an idea came to fruition, it would be impossible to implement. The internet is worldwide. They can't force someone to license a Russian website. All this would do is move website server locations outside the country. " *Anonymity on the internet will come to an end. " There is no such thing as anonymity now. Your IP address is already transmitted to every site you visit. The government wants to know who you are, a simple warrant gets them that info. These new rules don't change that. " *A fairness doctrine on political speech will be implemented and decided by unelected bureaucrats " How do they do that? Again, the net is worldwide. They cannot control a website/server located in another country. " * Net Neutrality solves a problem that does not exist. The cost of moving data on the internet has dropped 30% each year since the late 1990's. " Yet my cost of internet service has gone UP by much more than 30% since the 1990s. And I have fewer choices for providers. " *The biggest supporters of the FCC Net Neutrality such as Netflix are also the biggest providers, they know the new regulation will discourage lower cost ISP's. " Exactly. As already mentioned, this is all driven by companies who buy legislators to do their bidding. Neither side is looking out for the consumer. This is about big companies fighting it out to increase their profits and control. " *The internet will eventually run at the speed of the government " How so? How does prohibiting TWC from over-charging Netflix for an exclusive deal to lock out a Netflix competitor - and then increasing your rates because you have less choice ruin the internet? How is prioritizing Netflix by throttling my speed of downloading a file (when we both pay the same for service) justified? If there were 10 providers and you could choose the "netflix prioritized" and I could choose the "file download prioritized" I would agree. As it is, we are both stuck with the same ONE choice in providers so someone gets screwed while we all pay the rate increase. " *The same people that gave you the shipwreck of Healthcare.com will now have power over the world wide web. " The government screwed up the healthcare system. 1000% agreed - I am pissed on that one. But that is not the same thing as this. The comparison the the train wreck of a website it fun to make, but the government will not be "running" the internet and building everyone's websites. " *Censorship and Chinese style oppression will come in time. " The FCC has been regulating the telephone system for a while. Where is the censorship and Chinese style oppression? I have said some dumb things on the phone in my day, and not once has a swat team busted down my door. Let's face it - they want to shut you up, they can already do it. No need to hide behind the FCC. " *The government will eventually tax internet commerce (i.e. your purchases). " Easy enough to do right now. VAT/National Sales Tax ideas have been floating around for a while. This doesn't change that at all. " *More regulation will eventually = slower speed + less innovation + less investment. " How? If no one can be throttled because another company purchased priority, that will lead to more opportunity. More companies can deliver more content without getting ripped or shut out by the provider. If things get slow or crowded, the provider will be forced to innovate and invest in their network. If the cable company can prioritize, whoever isn't paying for "premium delivery" will have slower speed. It shuts out the little guy and stifles innovation. " *After the Monica Lewinsky Scandal Hillary Clinton called for the government to have of gate keeper function to review content before it appears on the web. It can now happen. " The Clinton's have said and continue to say ridiculous things. They would love to control everyone's life. That doesn't make their wish attainable of even technically possible. " *"Net Neutrality" is probably Obama's biggest scam yet. If you loved freedom lost under Obamacare you will love Obama-net! " You may be correct, but I don't think so. I don't think there is a true political agenda in this. It is two powerful companies fighting it out and one side bought the "D" while the other bought the "R." Each could have easily sided with the opposite parties.

Yes, overbuild. Forgot about that because I am still waiting to see it create competition (aside from FIOS). Ironically, any new provider in an area still has to be approved by the government, so the government is already "controlling" the internet regardless of what the FCC is doing. The reality is (as you acknowledge) competitors do not come in. It is too expensive for a startup and the big guys don't want to get into a price war. Whether it is cost or simply an unspoken agreement between cable companies, the consumer does not have a choice, unless you move. Satellite? For TV, yes they provide a viable option. For internet? Not even in the same ballpark. Internet is the topic at hand. Interestingly, the driving force behind the FCC thing, however is "TV." More and more "TV" is being streamed over the internet and the cable companies want to control that stream. We would have seen the same problem brought up years ago with VOIP - it was avoided because mobile phones took over and the phone companies got to keep their effective monopoly. Regardless, I don't see a win no matter what happens with the FCC. It's either the government or the cable companies that are in control. Neither is our friend. Each is as bad as the other. I am all for capitalism and "let the market decide." However, the internet distribution system is already so heavily regulated (whether cable, satellite or wireless) that there is no free market at work. Edited to add: I don't know if this is part of what the FCC has planned, but one potential plus I saw form the previous reports was to reclassify internet providers as utilities. (I forget the exact classification, but it would put them in the same class as the phone company). The plus to this is that they would be forced to extend their service to rural areas. I am not usually a proponent of the government forcing things, but internet has essentially become a necessary utility. You can't be in business today unless you are online. Kids is rural areas are at a distinct disadvantage without internet access. A person near me is 250ft away from the TWC service pole and was just quoted $189,000 for installation (although they offered to kick in $3000 to share the cost). With no other choices, sometimes the government needs to step in. For what I pay in taxes, they should do something for me every so often.

Already controlled, actually owned, by the Federal Government. Carrier Pigeons: FAA jurisdiction Firewood: EPA jurisdiction You can't win. They control it all. And that's the thing which puts me on the fence for this issue. On the surface, this is a good thing. There is no "free market" currently for internet connectivity. It is essentially the same monopoly the phone company had back in the day. Similar to electric or natural gas. With a few exceptions, a single company owns a market. Cablevision, TWC, Comcast... whomever. They have a government contract to be the exclusive cable provider in a defined area. Some entrepreneur cannot come along and build a competing network. Yes, Verizon had "FIOS" in limited areas, but the truth is that it isn't truly competition. As is the problem with monopolies, they can price gouge and take advantage of the customer. Sure you can cancel their service, but online access has pretty much become a necessity and not a luxury. Cable companies have pushed the envelope too far, which is why people are pushing the government to step in. They are afraid of losing revenue... they used to have a monopoly by selling you "HBO" along with your internet package. Now, you don't need HBO because you can get movies from Netflix. Your savings is their loss in revenue. They want to make that up by charging Netflix. Since they are the only way for Netflix to get into your home, they get to decide how much to charge and how to structure it. Everything is designed for them to maintain their monopoly. Let's not even get into the political money and influence they have which helps maintain the current laws which grant them that monopoly. In effect, the government already "controls" the internet, acting as pawns for the big cable and telecom companies. Then there is the other side. There are advantages to consumers by classifying internet companies under the new FCC rules. On the surface, there are good things. The problem is that government never leaves things alone. It always gets twisted and bigger and more intrusive. Once the government gives itself the right to tell people what they can't do with an internet connection, they also give themselves the right to tell people what they can do with it. And with the control is certain to come with more taxes and fees. "They've never screwed us, EVER, what could happen?" unfortunatlely applies equally to government and monopolistic corporations. It is a no-win situation.

If they exist, it is illegal to take a picture with it in NY. "Selfies" with wild cats are now against the law.

Self preservation. A few years back, Newsday ran an article that was somewhat critical of the police department. They were rewarded by having their trucks targeted for speeding tickets on the LIE. It was an interesting showdown.

Were the horses loose and wandering around? (Pretty unlikely at night - even it the gate was left open, horses would be more likely to stay near their shelter on a cold night.) If the horses were in their pasture/enclosure.... why the heck were these guys doing shooting at _anything_ in that area? It has nothing to do with night visibility. They would have been shooting at something on someone else's land where they did not have permission, and should have known the owner had livestock.

East coast or east of Mississippi? Big difference. Kentucky and Tennessee are not east coast. Isn't the frost line in Florida? If Florida is out, you are not escaping the snow. Don't like Florida because of the heat? Ever been in Georgia or South Carolina in the middle of the summer? Can feel just as hot as Florida. Temps are generally milder along the coast and have greater swings as you move inland. Of course, being on the coast puts you right in the path of hurricanes. Delaware, Maryland and Washington area... about the same as NY/Nj weather. Maryland has as bad, if not worse, gun laws than NY/NJ. The best compromise, IMO is North Carolina. Summer is hotter than NY, but not as bad as Florida. Winter warmer than NY, but not as good as Florida. Second choice to NC would be southern Virginia - Norfolk-WIlliamsburgh-Richmond area. There's always going to be a tradeoff. It will either be too hot, too cold, too rainy, or have hurricanes/tornadoes. Unless you want to go to San Diego (definitely not east coast), then the weather is great year round. Of course, that means you have to live in California - southern California. If west coast works and you are not in a rush, buy land in western Arizona/Nevada. The desert land is real cheap and when the big earthquake takes California into the sea, you will have prime oceanfront property.

i'm really not trying to be a smart-alec. Its just that the NYSP are really pushing things a bit far by pre-empting the legislature and courts with their own wording and interpretations. The safe act did the following: Banned all magazines with >10 round capacity, including those previously grandfathered. Grandfathered in 10 rd mags that were possessed at the time the law took effect. Allowed for loading a max of 7 rds in a grandfathered 10 rd mag. Ten rounds can be loaded under specific circumstances (e.g. at a range) How that applies to items brought in from out of state, I don't know. How anyone can prove that a 10rd mag was/was not owned prior to 2013 I don't know. The Skretny decision ruled against the 7rd limit. My understanding is that NY falls under two different courts and due to that the Stretny decision only applies to part of the state. From a legal standpoint, the 7rd limit is still valid outside that jurisdiction. I think it technically still applies in the rest of the state, but most would agree that the Stretny decision makes it a non-issue. Then there's the overzealous cop/DA who could ruin your day. On top of this, Cuomo has supposedly said the NYSP would not enforce the 7rd rule.n (I haven't heard him say it myself). The LAW has not been amended by the legislature. although you could technically call the court ruling an amendment or sorts. What has been amended is the NYSP guide to enforcing this provision. I am not picking on jjb4900. What was posted is directly from the NYS website. I feel this distinction is very important. The NYSP do NOT have the authority to write or amend laws. Neither does the governor. Only the legislature can do that, and the the change must be signed into law by the governor. Barring that, a court ruling (such as Skretny) can alter the interpretation or application of the law - or even strike it down.. The NYSP has been making up their own BS on safe since day 1. They can interpret, stretch or add to the law all they want - it doesn't make it fact. Yes - in practice they can arrest you for anything they want. That doesn't make it legal, not does it mean it will hold up in court. Remember - the NYSP "guide" can change at any time. Cuomo wants to "crack down" or someone in Albany gets a cross hair up their backend and they could totally re-define what that guide says - without approval from the other branches of government. Just because some idiots in Albany decide "this is the law" doesn't make it the law. We need REAL reform (or repeal) of the safe act. The 7rd limit - along with plenty of other sections - need to go. Cuomo deciding to "not enforce" certain sections isn't good enough. All the "has been amended" hype is just to get people to shut up. "See - we fixed the law. Nothing to worry about!" It hasn't been fixed and we need to keep the pressure up. Answer to the original question - the limit is whatever they decide it to be. Either way, the empty 10rd mag should be fine under the law (with or without Skretny's ruling). To be extra sure, only load with 10 rds when at the range and you are 100% compliant with the text of the law. IANAL - this is NOT legal advice.

You are right on target with that. I cannot believe how many people use that "nobody needs 10 bullets" as a major talking point. Very often they leave off the "to kill a deer" portion, believing that 10 (or less) is some magic number that will save mankind. The problem with rebuttals is they do not work. In my experience, once someone gets this mantra in their head, they treat is as some sort of divine insight. Speaking with these people can be very frustrating. Page numbers change depending on the source. It is under the section "11. License: revocation and suspension." Again, I can understand how NYSP would like to interpret this section in a sweeping manner. However, the way it reads and the context of the section's paragraphs a-c all point to due process (judge's ruling, felony conviction). The "mental health" qualification (paragraph c does leave some room for interpretation, but the MHL section it refers to is clear regarding specific threats/suicide attempt. I think many of us agree that safe is poorly written. This section, IMO, is just as bad on that point. I don't know if the intent was to remove all guns from someone who simply failed to dot the "i" on their pistol paperwork. The way this section is actually worded, to me, leave some room. Again, what they actually plan to do is another thing entirely. The NYSP guide that was quoted is clear that they plan to take all guns. For most people, the legal battle to fight this section will cost far more than the cost of replacing the guns. The fact that you can legally replace those guns immediately after surrendering your old ones, to me, makes fighting the surrender an easy win in court. In other words, regardless of how you want to read the section, it is effectively meaningless (for those who can pass a NICS check). edit - this forum does not like the letter "c" in parenthesis.

What you posted is crystal clear. Where did you get that text? It looks like an explanation/interpretation of the law, rather then the law itself. I have full text of the entire safe act and cannot find that wording anywhere. The actual section of the act regarding confiscation is in: "11. License: revocation and suspension." There is no "V. PISTOL PERMITS" section in the actual law (S2230-2013/A2388-2013). Again, I have no doubt they want to and will attempt to take away all guns whenever they have an opportunity. I am only asking where in the actual law is the text that give them the clear authority to do so. 11.(a)-© are the sections which deal with the mandatory surrender and reasons for it. I can see how some would want to read it that way, but I don't think it is clear either way, especially when other parts of the law are read and don't mention surrender of long guns. The only thing clear to me is that it is both a waste of time and a good reason for a court challenge. If not rendered unable to pass a NICS check, you could drive down to police HQ to surrender your shotgun and then buy a new one on the way home (legally). The safe act may provide for confiscation of long arms in certain situations, but it doesn't have language to preclude someone from future ownership of a rifle/shotgun. IMO, this adds an even stronger argument for my reading of the section. Confiscation from a "non-prohibited" person does nothing to "serve the public good" and is merely an unjust penalty applied to someone who has only been guilty of a "technical" rules violation (as opposed to a crime) without any due process.

I see this claim thrown around a lot. I don't believe that is what the law actually says. The section of the law which includes confiscation refers to two instances when other guns get confiscated. Those are being convicted of a felony or being judged mentally incompetent. Both situations involve due process and would disqualify you from owning those other guns anyway. What they actually do might be another story. How a judge may rule on it might be a different story. I just don't believe the law explicitly gives them the ability to confiscate all guns if your pistol license get s pulled for some "technical" reason. Unless they are pulling off "swat" raids with illegal searches, I am not sure they can pull it off in practice. Even in NY, I don't think a judge is going to issue a "no knock" warrant for someone who forgot to submit their re-certifcation form on time. Most likely, they will either send a letter or ring your bell asking for surrender of license and guns they know about. There is no reason they should know about guns your wife/brother/son/daughter/friend owns which might also be stored in your house.

That one's the kicker. The 500ft rule is a statewide thing and easy to find (someone already posted the text in this thread). Local ordinances can be a bit harder to find. You have county, town and sometimes even village level to consider. Some of these are available online, some are not.

In other words, danger makes 'em horny.

My apologies, First-light. My comments were not in reference to your specific project. I know nothing of the details of what is happening in your area. My comments were in reference to a few specific projects that I am personally familiar with, all in the southern tier. What I described is how those companies worked in those areas. Your situation seems to work well for your and your neighbors. That is great. As I mentioned, this is not a black and white issue. There are different sides and both can have valid points. What is a boon for one area can be disastrous for another. It is not one size fits all. Regardless of which side you are on, a little research into the topic will show that the companies attempting to build in the southern tier (Meredith, Stamford, Grand Gorge, etc.) employed some very questionable tactics. This is documented and easily verified. That is not to say that all these companies do this in every area (although it does seem to be more common than not). I have no axe to grind. I did not want wind turbines in my area (and seemed to be of the majority opinion). All the projects were soundly defeated a few years ago. None are currently active. I did not purchase my land or build my home until I was sure they were going to be defeated. If these projects looked like they were going to approved, I would have looked elsewhere for my land. I had nothing to lose. Things turned out fine for me, and would have either way.

Internet? What internet? Some of these areas have NO internet access. Even if they drive 40 minutes to a starbucks and connect with a smart phone, it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is an issue with two sides. The wind company side is better funded and better organized. Also, the energy company doesn't come in with a parade down main street. They are very quiet, approaching a few key landowners. These people are offered money and must sign a confidentiality agreement.They are forbidden to discuss this with anyone - including neighbors. Most residents have no idea what is happening until it is (almost) too late. Finally, not everyone has a say on the topic. As you noted, these things are visible from miles away. I have a great view where I am but the area where one of these projects was slated for is in a different town. My neighbors and I had no voice in the outcome. Absolutely. The Meredith documentary illustrates that perfectly. As do many other defeated projects in the Southern tier. People banded together and fought the town board. Long standing officials were voted out... and long-term friendships were destroyed. It was touch and go for a long while. These could have gone either way. Both sides thought they were doing the right thing. Both sides had "solid information" on the topic to support their view. If not for some luck of the right person getting wind of it (pun intended) some of these projects might have gone through. Part of the reason some of these project died was also timing... the economy tanked and made it less economically feasible to keep fighting for the towers. I think these are the modern day equivalent of the "oil rig tax write-off" from the 70s. They provide a great tax benefit for investors. When the economy goes south, the write-off isn't as appealing. I'm with you on this... I think these things are a blight on the land. Others don't agree with that. That is all subjective. Aesthetics aside, I believe there are many other practical downsides. However, the other viewpoint has their own set of arguments to counter that. It is a tough subject and not so black and white.

Mike, My comment wasn't intended to argue and I agree with your basic point. However, I did want to point out that while the writer mentioned the Republican party, he specifically noted he did his trolling for a _different_ company than the one which had the GOP as a client. I see where he may have intended some connection, but the text does not state that. (emphasis mine) In fact, he doesn't specifically state he ever had anything to do with the GOP - only that they were client of the company he interned for.

Why is this a surprise? Just about every major organization is doing it and has been doing it for a while. It is very big with "review" sites. Also, while the original article is crafted to give the impression that the GOP is doing it, the article does stop short of stating that. In fact, the author claims to have interned for a company with Republican party contracts but says the job offering was with a different company. It may or may not have had anything to do with politics. While I believe both political parties engage in this practice, there is no way one can derive the title of this thread from the linked "article."