jrm

If only that were true. Those who promised Remington wouldn't leave are unaffected. Just as all the other politicians who routinely lie and promise things they can never deliver. There are no repercussions. They make promises to get what they want. Once they get their way, they ignore the promise and move on to the next fake promise. They are worse then weathermen. At least the weather people believe what they are saying when they provide tomorrow's forecast... and occasionally the weather forecast actually comes true.

The Republican party in NYS is broken. They can't find their a$$ with both hands. I have lived downstate NY my entire life. Growing up I met many of the big-wigs in the party (through my mom who was involved on a local level). People like Al D'Amato when he was "up and coming." These folks were the picture of a "good 'ole boys" network. The half of them that didn't get indicted went on to run Nassau County for years. They couldn't lose an election... until they brought Nassau to the brink of bankruptcy though mismanagement and patronage. But they never learned their lesson. They still try to play the "good 'ole boys" game. They have no clue and no desire to make anything work right, no less get a governor elected. They sit around with their thumbs up their butts and only care that their half-wit brother Harry retains his job as Park Commissioner or their mistress still has that six-figure job in the County Office. Granted, the Dems do the same thing. It is just their turn to be in charge down here. It has nothing to do with beliefs, politics or convictions - they all vote the same way. I know there are a few different types in some upstate areas, and that is good. But downstate, there are no "republicans" in the real sense. We really need a new party that actually represents the voters and not just their "buddies" and the patronage jobs they provide. It is disgusting that the RNC isn't giving Astorino more support. He does have a chance. I believe that in NYS at the least, the RNC is bought and sold. In their minds, they are happy to have Cuomo stay in power to keep the status quo in their own corrupt fiefdoms.

I did the same math and came to the same conclusion - not sure if it is worth it. 20 years for payback is a long time. That also assumes you will hunt and take advantage of that license for each of those 20 years. Sure, at 25 or 30 years old it is probably a good deal. On the other side of 50 years old and it isn't so attractive any more. One may assume license fees will continue to rise, but that isn't always the case. Didn't they just lower the fee? Even if the costs go up slowly over the next 20 years, you could invest the $1,000 and probably account for any price increases over the same period. The younger you are, the more the lifetime cost makes sense. If you are currently 50 years old, you could buy a license every year for $22. Without price increases, you would spend $418 between now and age 69. A lifetime would cost you $535 - that's $117 savings to account for price increases. Even bigger savings if you don't hunt for one or more of those 19 years. Then, you could get the discounted lifetime at age 70. Everyone's situation is different. IMO, the value of a lifetime license starts to fade rapidly when you are in your 40s. The pricing structure needs more flexibility.

One of us is not doing the math right. 2# bag at 9.96 each. Buy 2 (4# total for $19.92) get 1 (another 2# free). That's 6# for $19.92 - cost = $3.32/lb The 9# bag on the regular site is $39.98 for 9# - cost = $4.44/lb So the "special sale" is giving you a much better price (25% less) than the 9# bag on the website. Am I misunderstanding? BTW - what is "no plow?"

I understand. I am one of those on Long Island - about 1/4 acre of property. My taxes are obscene. Compare that to about 30 acres upstate with a comparable home - the numbers aren't close. Your point is valid and I agree it is not fair. The argument is that the landowner on LI gets more "services" for his money, but that's really BS. It isn't fair. Taxation is simply legalized extortion. Regarding DMPs, I think there is another side to this. Regardless of who pay what for taxes, the actual location of that property and the owner's desired use should be a factor. If your property is in 4O, you should receive some sort of advantage for using _your own property_ in 4O. It's not so much who is paying how much in taxes, it is more I am paying taxes for _this_ land and someone who pays no taxes at all in this area gets the same opportunity at resources in _this_ area.

At this point, I was just trying to understand how it all works. Sure, there has to be a limit and 50 acres seems a reasonable place to draw the line. At the same time, it can seem a little strange that you can own land in a unit like 4O, pay taxes on that land, but not be able to get a DMP to hunt that same land. That person owning a condo in NYC has the same chance of getting a DMP in 4O as the resident who owns 49 acres in 4O. But that's the way it is. Government works in mysterious ways. Where I do have a "problem" is the "pay to play" lottery system. Using 4O as an example again - you must have PP to have a chance at a DMP. That requires you to pay for that tag for 1-3 (or more) years. For at least the first year (and likely more) you are _guaranteed_ to get nothing (except a point to apply the following year). One could argue it is "only" $10 a pop. I still have a problem with the concept of giving money to the government in the hope that, through some "behind closed doors" process, they may (or may not) provide me something in return at some point in the future. Regarding the "highest tax payer first" idea... they are already doing that with the >50 acre rule. Theoretically, the owner of 50 acres is paying more taxes than the owner of 20, 30 or 40. So the system is giving preferential treatment to the highest tax payers. I am not necessarily disagreeing with the land ownership requirement, only pointing out that it contradicts your argument.

Not sure it is the same thing. If you own property in an area, you should have an advantage when it comes to using that same property. The person with 50 acres already has an advantage over the person with, say, 20 acres... they have 30 more acres to hunt/farm/whatever. Both pay their share of taxes in that area and should be entitled to whatever benefits their land has to offer. Of course, our taxation system is inherently unfair. I live downstate where my "primary" residence is. I also own a second home upstate. I pay taxes, just like anyone else in both areas. However, I am only permitted to vote in one of those locations. While this makes sense for state and federal level, it does not at the local level. I have no say over the local elections, school budget, etc. Taxation without representation at it's finest. While not exactly on-topic, it does show how un-level the playing field is.

I was looking for something similar a few years ago. The rental places I found only have PTO equipment (needs a tractor) and the prices were very high. I ended up buying a "swisher" tow behind rough-cut mower. Cost was under $1500. I use it for trails and maintenance of basically a one acre field. Considering my limited options, this has been both time and cost effective. It works great with my ATV. This might be an option worth looking at.

Very possibly. I am only guessing 3 are needed based on the "odds" page. They give a guide for "high" "medium" "low" etc. It certainly gives the impression that "PP Req" would be among the most difficult places to get a DMP. They only state it may require 1, 2 or 3 points to be selected. I don't like lotteries to begin with (the $$$ lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math). Buying a guaranteed loser this year just to have a chance at buying a winner next year (or the year after) is counterintuitive for me.

sending a PM

Maybe some of you more experienced folks can help me out with the DMP thing. Not sure I completely understand how it works. I looked at the DEC website. I am only interested in 4O. The "probability page" states a 30% probability. Then it states PP required for "residents" and "none" for 2nd DMP. In this context, does "resident" mean NYS resident? Then, on the DMP page it talks about landowners. In one place it mentions "qualifying" landowners, which I take to mean 50 acres (as described on that page.) I have about 30 acres which is where I hunt. Further down, it just states "landowners" without mentioning "qualifying." So I am a landowner in 4O, but don't have 50 contiguous acres. Does that count for anything? If not, it seems I need preference points. The only way to get them is to place a losing bet on a 4O DMP, correct? The way I understand it, I will have to keep purchasing a DMP lottery ticket for $10 each year, with at least the first year being a guaranteed loser (no pp accumulated). After I buy enough preference points with those losing tickets, I can keep buying with a 30% chance of winning the lottery. Is that correct or am I not understanding the process correctly? *** edited to add: I found another publication which seems to clarity that all the uses of "landowner" refers to the 50 contiguous acres. It would be nice if the website was more consistent with terminology, but I guess I expect too much. So as far as I can see, a resident in 4O basically has a "chance" of getting a DMP once every four years. Three years of paying for the application which will accumulate 3 preference points. In the fourth year, you theoretically have good odds of winning a DMP, which spends all the PP. The next year you start over from zero and spend another three years buying points. Is this how it works?

Until you realize you are dealing with a government entity. By nature, these bureaucracies rarely do anything that makes sense. Or as the saying goes "they couldn't find their a$$ with both hands."

On the DMP topic, maybe someone can clarify something for me. The DEC site says you apply for a DMP, but are not guaranteed to get one. Understood. It also states there is a $10, non-refundable application fee. The way this reads, you pay your $10 and then find out if you get a DMP. Either way, you are out the $10. Is this correct? Or do you only pay if you actually receive the DMP? I believe the latter is correct, but the way it reads, the former would be the case.

DMP sales are currently suspended due to system problems. See: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6094.html for the notice from DEC.

If it isn't ready now, why not wait until it is? If they won't be ready for a few weeks, wait a few weeks to open the system. Opening now, but asking people to wait just causes confusion. Gotta love a bureaucracy. As my dad used to say "they can screw up a bowling ball."

That is great - congratulations. You are fortunate to still have your parents, especially in such good health. Cherish the moments.

I know Canadian's like their beer, but $1700 sounds steep for a few cases of Molson. -sorry - couldn't resist. Don't you just love auto-correct?

I agree that hunters - and all groups - should adopt a more "multi-use" philosophy. I can't speak for hunting groups, but I do know that there are some other groups who actively oppose shared use of public land/trails. In addition to hunting, I am involved in horseback riding. We run into some real problems with trail use. Due to many factors (all of which can proved fallacious) we often get relegated to "horse only" trails. There is a big reluctance to shared use. It is possible that a little of that comes from the horse community, but the real push is from other groups. The problem being that these other groups (hikers and mountain bikers) have bigger, or at least more organized, groups. You can bet that some of these types of "single-use" groups will come together, coordinate and inform their members about this survey. Their organizational and communication skills will be helpful in skewing the results. Aside from this, the survey itself is flawed. It also points to an issue which hunters and equestrians have in common. Some hunters normally only hunt private land. (Just as some equestrians normally only ride private trails or arenas). Based on this survey, all those hunters would not indicate they use public lands for this purpose. While technically correct, any move to lessen the ability to hunt on public lands would affect all hunters. Yet the move to do so would be "justified" based on this survey because it doesn't account for hunters who don't regularly use public land. Take the survey. If you are not comfortable checking "hunting" as one of your uses, make sure to indicate something about that in the notes section. Get friends to do the same. While many positive responses are not guaranteed to work in our favor, the _lack_ of a significant number of responses will almost certainly work against us.

Blackberries grow on bushes. Mulberries are very similar in appearance, but grow on trees.

I miss the Mulberry tree we had at my last home. Planning to plant one this fall. Mulberries are delicious... even if they do stain everything blue.

Bingo. I can't speak to a specific hunting show, but everyone should realize... there is no such thing as "reality" TV. All "reality" shows are scripted and produced for entertainment value (or to sell something). Camera shots are planned and executed with this in mind. In an editing room you can take a days worth of footage and put it together to tell any story you want it it. That's not to say any hunting show won't have a good "tip," show good hunting practices or be promoting a worthwhile product. All entirely possible. Just that what you seeing on TV (whether hunting shows, "real" housewives, bachelor, whatever) doesn't necessarily take place as they lead you to believe.

I realize hunters should know better. I'm on Long Island and we have some high density deer areas. I have heard of people feeding the deer because they a) think they are doing a good thing to help a "hungry" animal or want the "pretty" deer to be a regular visitor to the yard. They have no interest in hunting (some actually oppose it). When I explain that feeding is illegal, they don't believe me. When I prove it, they stare with incomprehension. They can't wrap their head around the concept.

Not sure if you are directing that comment at me... if so, I take exception to such an insult. I am not for more regulation. I could care less if the product is sold or not. My point is that it is wrong to demonize or complain about people purchasing a legal product or the stores that sell it. Neither is doing anything wrong. I don't think there should be regulation on hammers. If you buy a hammer, that's your business. If you try to kill someone with it, then there are already laws to address that situation. When I wrote about Albany dropping the ball... I meant that facetiously. As the following sentence indicates, it would be impossible to "regulate" corn (or whatever feed is in the package).

Deer will eat hay? I sometimes leave a few bales out for my horses (during the summer - I don't have my horses on the property during hunting season). Will that attract deer? Or will the horses in the adjacent stalls scare them off. Never thought of that before.

I agree that the packaging is incredibly wrong. I find it puzzling that a product can marketed and sold for an illegal purpose. But how would you go about stopping the sale of these kind of products? I have never bought one or looked at the ingredient list - someone else mentioned it is basically corn. If the packaging is "regulated" the same product will still be on the shelves in a different "compliant" package. As long as a product sells, the stores will put it on the shelf. That _might_ cut down on its use by people who "just want to feed the pretty deer" but won't do anything about those who use it for hunting (because they already know it is not permitted in NY). I am not defending the practice of baiting because it is not legal. I don't consider myself knowledgable enough about the practice to attack or defend it where it is legal. I will, however, defend the right of a retailer to market and sell a legal product without having themselves or their customers targeted and harassed by law enforcement. There are legal means of regulating or prohibiting the sale or items. If this product should not be on the shelf (and I agree that it shouldn't in its current form) then there is a process to handle that. Just as we cannot pick and choose the laws we would like to obey, we can't invent new rules out of thin air. The implications for many other products are obvious. Obviously, someone in the DEC and Albany has dropped the ball on this one. I would still like to see a credible plan for regulating the sale of "corn."