jrm

These companies don't just come in and find a piece of land to build on. They do their homework and approach the "right" people. They also provide all their propaganda to these same decision makers. How many 3rd generation farmers really understand the ramifications of a 400' tower in their pasture? (No offense to farmers - urbanites are just as ignorant on the topic.) They are "sold" by slick company reps and handed packages of "scientific" studies showing how "safe" this "green" energy is. They are not told about any potential downside, only about the _potential_ income (which is sold as guaranteed). They look like saviors the the family farmer who is just getting by (crushed by NY taxes and over-regulation). These decision makers are then sent to town hall in their official capacity to approve these plans. How are residents in a strong position to question all this "science?" Who is capable of refuting the wind company's claims? In the areas I am familiar with, there is no such thing as "broadband" - you are not going to "google" anything meaningful on a dial-up connection. Many of these people would gladly protect their town, but have only been exposed to one side of the issue. Check out the documentary "Windfall" about the Meredith Wind Project. I can't find a direct link to the movie right now, but it is available somewhere online.

I have some land in an area that was targeted for wind turbines. It all ended up getting shot down, but I did follow the subject for a while in the area. Do land values drop when these are installed? I can't say for sure. When I was looking for land, I had two real estate agents advise me against buying in the area due to the (at the time) pending wind projects. I can say for sure that the real estate market in the area was much slower than it should have been at the time. There were plenty of deals available and many people wanted to "get out" before the wind deal was a fait accompli. Scare tactics based on a false assumption? Very possibly. However, the reality is that land was selling for below market. I used this fact to get a good price on my land. One point of your's I disagree with is the possibility of the land price going up. In the few projects in my area that could not have happened. The wind companies come in and pretty much know how many turbines they want and where they will go. They approach those landowners and make their deals. (Read about the wind project in Meredith to see how clever they are. They plan their towers around the town council's land to get the "decision makers" on board from the start). This is all done family quickly so the "winners" and "losers" are set at the beginning. After that point, you are either buying a parcel with a tower already on it or one with a view of a tower. None of the projects I have seen have opportunity for any "expansion" so others can cash in later. I see your point about doing the right thing for yourself and your family. Personally, I think these things are monstrosities and I am not sure I could screw over my neighbors for $10k/year. Would 25 towers at $250k/yr make a difference. Even if the deal only lasted a few years, that $250k would buy a nice piece of land somewhere else. I am honest enough to say I would find it difficult to walk away - especially when I know my neighbors would take the deal in a heartbeat. The fact is that they would never approach me. Having seen their tactics, they target the folks who write the ordinances which allow them to build the towers.

FWIW, also see "PL § 265.20 Exemptions." This allows for ages 12-15 to use rifles/shotguns/airguns and ages 14-15 to use pistols when supervised. And while I am at it... the "three second rule" at stop signs is urban legend. You are only required to "stop." There is no time requirement in the law.

No wonder your inspections go so well. Having the inspector at gunpoint is a powerful motivator. (Not being a grammar nazi, just having fun. Couldn't resist)

I agree 100%, *IF* that deer is "owned" by the farm under NYS law. Liability is one of the important considerations when animals are classified as wildlife, livestock or domestic pets. *edited to add* : your liability is decreased or eliminated if you took reasonable measures to contain the livestock. A fallen tree that crushes a fence would pretty much have you covered. There is considerably less liability exposure for "livestock" as opposed to "pets" - even in NYS. I honestly don't know the answer and am only asking the question out of curiosity. True, game laws don't apply to livestock. By that reasoning, deer (or any animal) on a preserve could be hunted all year long. Could be hunted at night with searchlights. Lot's of implications there. If that were the case, I would think _someone_ is doing it... opening weekend one week before the real opening weekend. (Maybe someone is doing that)? Just seems it isn't as simple as that. Doesn't one of the regular posters on this forum own/manage/run a NY hunting preserve? Maybe they could weigh in with some verified fact?

That's what I am curious to learn. Can/are deer classified as wildlife and livestock depending on their method of birth. As livestock, an entirely different set of legal rules apply. There would have to be distinctions in the law to account for all the legal problems it would cause. Once that "livestock" escapes into the wild - mixing with indigenous wildlife of the same species - at what point, if any, does it cease being livestock and become wildlife. Recently there was talk about classifying horses as pets instead of livestock. I was involved in this through come local organizations. Many horse owners (who treat their horses like pets) were blown away when they learned about the negative ramifications of such a change. It is amazing how many rules there are and how much is affected by a change in classification. Does anyone know for a fact how the livestock vs wildlife designation applies to this in NY?

It does pose an interesting question. If it is livestock, as VJP suggested, then there are penalties for that. However, how to you prove that the hunter not only knew about an escaped deer, but knew that this is the same one? After all, it is legal to hunt deer and how do you determine this is the exact buck that escaped? Along the same lines - if deer are considered "livestock" in this situation, then how does that reconcile with hunting seasons? If you raise cows or goats, there are no rules about when you can process them. I have horses (livestock) - nothing stopping me from putting one down at anytime. Classifying farm raised deer as livestock would theoretically allow hunting those deer 365 days/year.

The story took place in Ohio. In NY, however, wildlife such as deer are considered the property of the state. The deer may be on your land, but you don't "own" it - NYS does. That's why you need a license to hunt and why the state can restrict hunting. I'm curious how that rule applies to a situation like this. If the deer was raised on a private preserve, does it now belong to the property owner? That starts bringing wildlife into "pet" territory (which is not a good thing). Regardless of the ethical question, I wonder about the legal question. If this happened in NY and the shooter was a licensed hunter following all the usual rules... did he legally take a deer, or did he kill someone's private property?

The days of insanely lucrative tax shelters are long gone. Sure, no one pays a true 40%, but then no one pays the full percentage in other classes. Want to talk about the middle class getting screwed? Look at the AMT, which is ridiculous. The whole "loophole" argument is quite overstated. The government got wise to the big loopholes many years ago and closed them up. "The rich don't pay their fair share" is sound-byte BS intended to incite class warfare. Remember when Romney was running and the complained how he was paying less in taxes than his secretary? That's more misleading crap. His income was primarily dividend income which is taxed at 15%. His secretary's income tax bracket was higher than 15%. However what Romey's tax bill for one year is probably more than his secretary would earn in 20 years. I live on Long Island. If you live here and aren't on food stamps, you are basically a 2%er, if not a 1%er. Any two-income household making a living wage is in the top tax bracket (not the new 400k+ one). Most of them fall in AMT territory so they lose out on most deductions. The tax accountant/tax lawyer business is out of control because out tax code is out of control. When I reference a flat tax, I mean the fair flat tax system that has been floated for several years... do away with the millions of pages of rules and loopholes and deductions. Have a genuine flat tax. That said, I still don't think it is fair to tax long term investment income at the higher rates (that money has already been taxed multiple times).. Nor do I think it makes sense to tax municipal bonds. It could be argued that people were much worse off in the JP Morgan days. These guys did some good things, but they were also complete elitists. You certainly didn't want to be working in one of their factories. There are plenty of people today who are doing "good" things... Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Eric Schmitt (Google) to name a few. These folks are the Morgans and Carnegies of today. I completely agree about celebrities. But that is our own fault. They get that much money and attention because we are willing to pay $250 for a ticket to a baseball game or $1500 for a football with their autograph on it. Why penalize them by taking money that we stand in line to give them? It people think they are so worthless, stop buying their movies, jerseys and tickets to their games. Why ask the government to correct our own bad judgement?

Person earns 50,000, pays 10% tax, : 5,000 taxes paid Person earns 100,000, pays 10% tax: 10,000 taxes paid Person earns 400,000, pays 10% tax: 40,000 taxes paid The higher earner is paying quite a bit more in a flat tax scenario. In our punitive tax rate system, the difference is obscene. Person earns 400,000, pays 40% tax: $160,000 taxes paid That's not taxation, that theft. And that number doesn't include property tax, school tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, capital gains tax, mortgage tax, etc. Abolish the IRS. Stop the punitive tax system. Which makes me think of... Man: Would you sleep with me for $1,000,000? Woman: Sure! Man: Would you sleep with me for $1 Woman: No! What do you think I am? Man: We already determined that. Now we are just negotiating price.

I could argue the "should keep what you earn" line as others have gone. Instead, let me point out that the whole "successful people are evil" isn't so much about money. It is about instigating class warfare and dividing the populace. While everyone is "marching on wall street" and having a bitch-fest about the "evil" people who have the audacity to become successful - the government is screwing you over and has their hand deep in your pocket. I'm not rich and I pay more in taxes each year... how's that "tax the rich" thing working out for you? Bread and friggin' circuses. Smoke and friggin' mirrors. Might as well say "I wish I had those AR owner problems." Heck, no one needs an AR or a 30rd magazine. Those people should be stopped! All they need is a slingshot, just like me! United we stand, divided we fall. EVERYONE is overtaxed, not just the "rich" people. If everyone got on the same page, instead of believing a Robin Hood myth, we could have real tax reform and ALL get to keep more of what we bust our butts to earn.

Agreed. Current rate is around 2.7%. This will be advantageous in most situations. My point is that it is not a "one size fits all." For some, it can push the lender into a higher tax bracket, negating any advantage. Also, there is the question of what interest rate can be earned on the money loaned. Current 30y mortgage rates look to be around 4% (CNN reports average at 3.8%). it sounds like a good deal to take a family loan at 2.7%. That's a 1.3% gap in rate. If the family member can get better than 4% (taxable) on an investment (entirely possible with well rated long-term bonds), the difference is negated. Depending on tax bracket, a 3% tax-free bond could be even better. The difference in interest could be "gifted" back to the family member tax free with no detailed record keeping or tax form filing necessary, making it a win-win for both family members. You get your 2.7% loan and your family member gets better than 2.7% on their money - all with no intra-family loan paperwork or amortization schedules to file. A 1% difference in earning on a 100,000 loan is $1,000/year. I'll take that any day. Nothing wrong with your idea of lending between family members. I have done it too in certain situations, even if it is considerable IRS hassle to deal with. With the current spread between AFR and mortgage rates being so small, now is not an ideal time for many to go this route. Just pointing out that everyone's situation is different and there are sometimes better alternatives. Any decent accountant can advise the best course for one's own situation. YMMV.

This is not tax advice... you should only get tax advice from a qualified lawyer or accountant. That said... There are many things wrong with the scenario you describe. The govt wants their money. You cannot simply mix assets with other people and get around tax. If you earn money (and pay tax on it) and then place those funds in a bank account with joint ownership, that money does not simply go to the other person when you die. Sure, they can withdraw the funds. However, there is a "tax event" that takes place. That money is still subject to estate tax. If you don't declare it on the deceased persons estate tax return there can be big trouble with the IRS. If the funds in that account came from both parties, it will be a nightmare sorting things out. The IRS can assess tax penalties if they decide that the money you made constituted a "gift" to that other person on the account. When you make a loan between family members, it is not necessarily a win-win. There is a minimum level of interest that must be charged. The loaner must declare that interest on their tax return and pay income taxes on it. This can often be a beneficial arrangement as opposed to using a bank. It can also push someone into a higher tax bracket, negating any tax advantage. If it is done simply to transfer assets between family members, it is often not worth it. Remember that the lifetime exclusion is currently 5.34 million dollars per person. For a married couple that doubles to 10.68 million dollars. Unless you and your wife are worth more than $10.68MM together, all the games usually aren't worth it because there is ZERO federal estate tax liability. New York State's exclusion is still at $1MM, which isn't hard to hit if you own a home, but the estate tax rate is low enough that playing games usually doesn't make sense. If you fall into the $10MM+ area, then you should: - have your own lawyer and accountants advising you - know this stuff already - have already made plans to minimize estate taxes - NOT be taking tax advice from strangers on a hunting forum Upon death, a bank account is supposed to be frozen. This can make it hard for people to get needed cash to pay bills for the deceased. An executor can access those funds, but even that can take too long in some cases. A good workaround is to simply open a bank account with an "In Trust For" title. The account owner is the only person who can access that account. Upon their death, the funds are immediately available to the beneficiary. All you need is a valid death certificate. For most people, that is a better solution than joint bank accounts where either party can access the money at any time. People much smarter than you and I have tried to beat the IRS and failed. They have seen it all. The only way some of these tricks work is that it is such small potatoes they don't have the manpower to catch up with it. But when they do... they will come after you for every penny they think they are owed - plus penalties and interest. Taxes suck. I have my own business and get hit on both sides. It is rape. All you can do it bitch about it. If you don't pay, they will take everything away and lock you up. Loan sharks are nicer people and more forgiving than the IRS. The IRS should be abolished and the tax code scrapped. It is a punitive system that penalizes those who are successful.

That is old. The estate tax gradually phased out and went to 0 in 2010. Due to inaction by congress, it was reinstated in 2011 at 35%. 2010 was the only year without an estate tax. Many hoped it would remain at 0%, and some congressmen floated that idea. If the economy wasn't in such bad shape at the time, it might have had some traction. The personal exclusion from Federal Estate tax was set at $5,000,000. With portability between spouses, a married couple had a combined federal exemption of $10,000,000. The exclusion is indexed for inflation. In 2014, it was 5.34 million per person. The exclusion was supposed to drop to $1 million and the rate increase to 50% after the phase out plan expired. However, congress issued a bill, which the president signed. That kept the exclusion where it is and brought the top rate to 40% (from 35%). Aside from the lifetime exclusion increasing, the rate is fixed at 40%. This is all at the federal level. State level is different. NYS has an exclusion of $1 million and rate are something like 11-14%. My mom passed in 2012 and my dad passed in 2013. I have been through all this with some fancy accountants and lawyers. I think estate tax, regardless of exclusion, is nothing more than theft. The government comes in and TAKES money someone has EARNED and already paid taxes on. The concept disgusts me and I see the government as nothing more than someone who digs a grave to steal a gold tooth from a deceased's body. That said, the original statement regarding estate taxes changing on January 1, 2014 is completely false. Some of the other information looks a little suspect.., Capital Gains for example. As far as I can see, it is still at 15%. For those in the top bracket (>450k income) is goes to 20% - both having the ACA (Obamacare) surcharge of 3.89%. Note that dividends and capital gains are taxed at the same rate so it doesn't make sense to claim different increase amounts for the two. They are bloodsucking leaches who steal the money you work for. I fully agree we are hopelessly overtaxed and that people should get to keep what they make. However, two wrongs do not make a right (although three lefts do).

Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We live in a Republic, not a democracy. "Majority Rules" is not always the case, and many times for good reason.

Agreed. Although in my case it is with an ATV, not a chainsaw. Before/after season, I some across deer regularly when riding an ATV on my trails. I think when season starts, the deer on my property all get together and charter a plane to Florida.

The comparison is not a valid one. Speed limits are essentially arbitrary numbers. The roads and vehicles are engineered for safe use at higher speeds. Enforcement is set, to some degree, with this in mind. No one gets a ticket for going 1, 2 or three miles over the limit. Typically, 10 miles over the posted limit is the magic number where enforcement starts. 55 was enacted in the 70s as a gas saving measure, not a safety measure. Despite its repeal, many places still maintain the arbitrary 55 limit. I believe the federal standard is supposed to be the "rule of 85" - basically the "proper" speed limit is the speed at which the 85th percentile of drivers are traveling at (with some restrictions and limitations). If that was used, most posted limits would be considerably higher. Keeping the limit unnaturally low makes it easier to generate funds by writing tickets. That's what most current posted limits are about... generating more tax revenue. Based on the history, enforcement practices and true purpose of speed limits, I don't think it is a valid comparison to rules around legal shooting times.

I live on LI, but don't hunt here. Not sure if things might be a little different. Also pretty new to this. Last year I bought a combined license (Supersportsman?) which included regular+bow+muzzleloader. That gave me a regular season tag and two bow/mz tags (either sex). This year, the license types are different and you must buy everything a la carte. I don't do MZ, so I bought regular+bow. That gave me one regular season tag + one bow season (either sex). If you used your bow tag already on that doe, you should still have your regular season tag. You can use that all through regular season, no matter what implement you use to take the deer. If you only have a regular+bow license, you should only have 1 regular + 1 special season tag. If DEC said you should have 1+2, they were wrong (unless you also added MZ to you license). Either way, based on what you wrote, you should still have your regular season tag.

Easy solution... don't use unnecessary software to transfer files. I'm on a Mac, but Windows should work the same way. The SD card mounts as an external disk. Simply "open" a window for that disk, select the photos and drag them to the desired location. Doesn't get any easier than that. And to your other point... I always wear blaze orange while transferring files. However, I admit to working on my computer outside of legal hunting hours.

Thanks. I just saw that the DEC has updated their AR web page and it has a diagram where they define "antlerless." That is new.

Question regarding antler restrictions: With a bow license, you receive a tag for antlered or anterless deer. Regarding using that tag in an AR area... Obviously, a doe is fine. Obviously, a buck meeting the AR criteria is fine. What about a buck with antlers not meeting the AR criteria? Is that considered "anterless" and legal to take, or does it fall under the AR rules and thus not legal to take?

Original deleted. I think my original response may come across as argumentative which is not my intent. Bottom line, I truly hope you are wrong. If you are right, we are effectively living in a police state where the Constitution and all existing laws have no meaning. Then again, I hope they try it on someone. I don't think there is a court that would uphold such an action. There is nothing in the law to allow confiscation of legally owned property in these circumstances. The state/city would get slapped down and this practice would be officially prohibited.

VJP, I follow what you are saying, but am not sure I agree. If you have actual examples of that exact situation happening, I would gladly admit I am wrong. We are talking about permit holders only - be it pistol or registered "AWs." By not following the law, the surviving family is guilty of a crime. I can see your logic... once a felon, they no longer have the ability to own guns. However, you need to be charged and convicted first. Coming to your home with a warrant doesn't make you a felon. Are they actually using warrants? Are they actually conducting full home searches? They could simply be coming to the home and asking for the guns that are listed in the registration files. They don't need a warrant since (at least in the counties I know of) your pistol license terms give them the ability to come to your home to demand surrender of your registered guns. (In NYC< I believe they also claim the right to inspect the storage mechanism). If they want more than that, they need a warrant. Are there actual situations of police also taking rifles which don't need to be registered? To do so legally, they would also have to arrest the homeowner (or surviving heir to the guns, assuming they know who that is) and arrest them on a felony charge. Again the laws suck. This method of enforcement of bad laws is, at best, insensitive. However, coming to a home to ask for the surrender of an illegally owned gun (i.e. unregistered pistol) is completely legal and has been for a while. I don't agree with it, but then I don't agree with many of over-reaching laws we have... I still follow them or face the penalty. There is no legitimate basis to take a legal long gun. They have just as much legal authority to confiscate your car and refrigerator in these circumstances. Lawyers would be crawling out of the woodwork to fight a case like this because it is a slam dunk win. I'm really not trying to be argumentative. If there are examples of full home searches or confiscation of long guns as you state, I would love to learn more. Based on the laws in place and the statements made in Buffalo, I am not sure that is actually happening.

All his friends always said he "couldn't hit the broadside of a barn." He sure proved them wrong!

The quote here and the original article references "registered" guns. This means pistols and AW registrations under the safe act. Prior to the safe act, it meant handguns only. Even the overly intrusive safe act allows for exclusion to the "private sale" rules between spouses and children. If I have legally owned rifles which are not subject to registration, they automatically pass to my wife upon my death (barring any will provision to the contrary). Assuming she is legal to own a rifle, they are legally hers. Are you claiming that if I lived in Buffalo, the police would somehow figure out I owned these "unregistered" rifles and come to my house 15 days later to confiscate? Those same rifles that she could go to gander mountain and purchase 10 minutes after the police left the house? That's not what I took away from the article at all. It is also completely illegal for the police to do so. The confiscation would not stand up - even in a bizarro NY court. Also, the list of guns (including long guns) filing does not apply to most people. It is only necessary when a list of assets is already required to be filed. That list will also include things like artwork, jewelry and other valuable items. I have a real problem with the intrusive nature of it all. But it is not limited to guns... they want to know _everything_. Edited to add: Where are you getting the long gun confiscation from? I can't find an article or quote to confirm that.