Padre86

Alright, so I do plan on contacting the DEC to get clarification on this, but I wanted to post this here just to see if my idea on this is way off or not. I recently received my NYS leashed tracking dog license from the DEC. The license allows me to use my dog to track wounded big game (specifically deer and/or bear) on behalf of another hunter or I also believe on my own behalf. There are specific requirements in terms of DEC notification, leashing the dog, weapons carried/used, ect. all of which can be found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/25020.html So my question is: am I allowed to bring my dog with me into the field when I deer hunt in the Northern Zone (specifically the Adirondacks)? The obvious answer to this used to be no, as the DEC had very specific language regarding hunting with or even being accompanied by a dog in the Northern Zone while carrying certain shotguns and rifles: found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27801.html But this is where the tricky part comes in. If I legally shoot a deer by myself in the Northern zone, and the deer, for whatever reason, doesn't go down but runs away wounded, I should theoretically be allowed to go and get my dog and track that deer, carrying whatever weapon (whether it be shotgun or rifle) that I legally used (due to the license I now have). Doing that however directly goes against the previously mentioned restriction on weapons and dogs in the Northern zone. Moreover, if it turns out that it is in fact legal for me to use my dog, while carrying a rifle or shotgun, to track a wounded deer (or bear) then it should be legal for me to be afield with a dog, while deer or bear hunting. My line of thinking on this is that if my license allows me to track the big game with a dog, while carrying, then I should be able to have my dog at my side prior to and during the hunt in case such tracking is needed. And before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, I'm not trying to find a loophole in the system so that I can chase, harass, or otherwise take deer and/or bear in an illegal and unfair manner. There are two main reasons that I am trying to get clarification on this: 1) My dog loves going into the outdoors with me and it's been a pain every time I've had to leave him behind because I'm not allowed to even have him accompany me during big game hunts in the Northern zone. I have an electronic collar on him when we go into the wilderness and have trained him not to take off after deer, so he knows to stay with me. 2) Hunting in the Northern zone, especially the Adirondacks, is remote and rough. If I do wound a deer or bear and need help tracking it, it would be extremely impractical, almost prohibitively so, to hike out to my car, go back to my cabin, get my dog, drive back, hike out and then try to find the animal. So what do people think of this? Is there perhaps a legal argument to be made on my part?

Any other tracking seminars happening in the near future, especially ones near NY?

Most of the sources you're using to support your argument aren't exactly known for being neutral on this issue. However, I'll leave this conversation to you and others. Gun rights are relevant to hunters, but I came here to talk about hunting in NY, not to hear people opine about gun laws and politics.

How are laws keeping Americans ignorant on gun violence? Care to go into some detail on that? In this day and age, I just have a hard time buying that. The FBI and any number of websites by private advocacy groups publish and maintain all types of data related to gun crimes and overall gun deaths. Also, under-funding the ATF? Again, maybe explain that a little bit more? The ATF is prohibited, by law, from creating an universal, electronic gun registry. And the reasons for that should obvious, even to someone who isn't a so-called "gun nut." Now, as to whether or not the ATF can update its record-keeping methodology without violating individual freedoms is perhaps a talk worth having, thought getting off on a tangent.

7mm strikes me as a caliber that hunters out west use to deal with the long distance shots they are more likely to take out there. I find that any shot beyond 200yards is not the norm for hunting here in the Northeast, and as such, something like 7mm might be an overkill, though there is certainly nothing wrong with that. Personally, I use .308 150gr Federal Soft Points. I find this grain and make put more than enough energy on target within the distances I'm likely to take a shot. And, in the off chance that I need a little more reach, there are grains and makes that perform easily out to 700-800 yards (not that I would ever see myself taking a shot of that distance in NY). I also target shoot quite a bit, so my inclination to use .308 is also motivated in part by the ammo's availability, cost, and established history and loading data. I know a few other, more traditional hunters, who prefer 30-06 since they view it as a jack-of-all-trades cartridge, capable of taking down most game that inhabit North America.

If I weren't on the other side of the state from you, I'd take you up on that offer. I am actually interested in shooting some non-lead types just to see how they compare performance-wise. Also, I really don't care if someone else, who calls himself a hunter, has completely different views from me. This country was built to be a place where differing views on politics, religion, culture, life in general would be able to thrive and co-exist. So you make reference to leaving your prius and Bernie sticker behind in order to make us traditional/conservative types feel more comfortable....maybe that was a joke, I don't know. But either way, it doesn't matter to me and I don't consider you, or anyone else, any less of a hunter just because your political views are different from mine. I might disagree with your opinions, but as said earlier, that's to be expected in a free society.

There are actually quite a few on here who are willing to have an intelligent conversation on this topic and others. But when you label those with opposing viewpoints as "angry" and imply that anyone who disagrees with you is misinformed, no one is going to take you seriously. Earlier, I asked you some very earnest and direct questions about lead bullet and raptor studies you had referenced. As well someone else had given a very thoughtful and well-articulated counter-point to your view, demonstrating that eagles, and raptor populations overall, have made a tremendous comeback over the last 20-30 years, despite our use of lead ammo. I'm eager to see you respond to these posts and continue this conversation in a productive manner. Or you can whine about how no one here is capable of an "intelligent" conversation and refuse to directly respond to others like a, well, curmudgeon.

This statement right here reinforces what I've been saying. How much have lead bullets truly been harming the bald eagle and other raptor populations if their numbers have experienced such a significant increase, despite the type of the ammo hunters have been using? The bald eagle, and other, populations have recovered and are doing just fine in terms of numbers and diversity. Why all of a sudden is there a push to correct the "lead bullet problem," when that "problem" seems to have an almost negligible impact on the eagle population, especially compared to other man-made issues? I think we are bickering about pennies while there are other more pressing environmental issues that deserve our attention.

So you give little credibility to the studies demonstrating avian deaths from wind and solar projects, while giving full credibility to studies which demonstrate lead poisoning from bullets? For what it's worth, there are quite a few studies establishing the link between these projects and bird deaths. It's hard to determine the exact number of deaths attributed to this issue (just like it is for lead poisoning), but most of these studies do acknowledge that the deaths number anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions every year. Are the number of birds dying from ingesting lead bullets anywhere close to that? And how do we know 60% of golden eagles in the lower 48 are suffering from low levels of lead poisoning if the study you referenced only covered a sample population of 239 from two very specific regions? How do we know that all of the lead exposure was from bullets and not from other sources? This conversation has turned into a battle of ideologies more than anything else, but I am perfectly willing to hear your responses to these questions, as I'm sure are others.

How many raptors and birds all together in the US are dying or have serious health issues because of lead bullets? How many are dying because of lead poisoning relative to a whole slue of other causes (both natural and manmade)? This is my point, that people like to pick and choose what they get outraged over. They will throw a fit when a small portion of birds die from lead poisoning, but have no qualms whatsoever about hundreds of thousands, millions by some estimates, dying annually from solar panels, wind turbines. An average of 116 Golden Eagles have died annually from turbines at just one wind farm in CA, according to a report: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html This is why I think this whole conversation has a narrow focus. Too many here and elsewhere are willing to make a stink out of the use of lead ammo, but its negative side affects seem marginal, almost negligible, compared to other ways we influence the environment and its inhabitants. BTW, CA's fish and wildlife acknowledged, after the ban was passed legislatively (yes I know its not fully implemented, but it has been turned into law) that there were other sources of lead and pollution which were affecting the Condor's health: from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/ This is perhaps a case of the glass half full or half empty, but my take is this: will removing lead bullets, and their resulting fragments from strikes, have any meaningful impact on our health and the health of other animals? And, are there other, more pressing issues, that warrant our attention over the use of lead bullets? Based on the studies I've seen so far, I think this whole topic is an argument over pennies when there is real money to be made by adopting other measures which promote a healthy environment.

This back-and-forth shows that there are plenty of people looking for a cause to adopt and make their own. All of a sudden lead bullets have become a topic of debate in the conservation circles. In reality, there are much more pressing issues in NY, and elsewhere, that need to be addressed. - I've not heard of hunters getting lead poison from eating wild game shot with lead bullets. Maybe it has happened, but I haven't heard of those incidents. - The lead levels of sample populations which eat wild game is generally about the same as the US population as a whole, if not slightly lower. - And while there is some evidence to suggest that raptors and certain birds are more affected by the lead in game carcass, are any of those populations shrinking or under threat because of lead bullets? Again referring to the Condor discussion in CA, that state's wildlife officials acknowledged (after the lead ban went into effect) there were other sources of contamination that were affecting that bird. If my understanding of any of these issues changes drastically, I'll reconsider my stance on lead bullets. As of now, I just don't see this as the crisis that some people are making it out to be, especially considering the environmental catastrophes that are taking place in most 3rd world countries. We're sitting here arguing about tiny fragments of lead, meanwhile pretty much every undeveloped nation is dumping all kinds of waste and trash into their environment...it helps to keep things in perspective.

Right. Those are the regs that I am familiar with. You can't shoot at animals in water, but shooting over water, as far as I know, is okay....obviously be aware of your surroundings and don't shoot over people boating or paddling by, but that should go without saying. Ceder Lake? Do you mean Cedar Lake? And West Lake? Where is that? To all posters, thanks for the detailed feedback. I definitely have some new ideas to take into consideration. I am deadset on hunting in the ADK's this year, regardless of how difficult it might be. So I'll continue to scout, mark my map and take notes on where I see activity.

You might be putting out informative studies, but the conclusions that you are drawing from them are what I question. Again, if shooting deer with lead bullets is such a health risk, why hasn't anyone conducted a comprehensive and comparative study demonstrating the difference in lead blood levels between two sample populations: those who do eat lead-shot venison; and those who don't? The only study that even comes close to covering that topic was the 2008 ND study, which showed that people eating lead-shot venison still had lower lead levels than the US population as a whole. I'm agnostic on this topic as a whole; if scientific review demonstrates that there is a measurable health risk from eating lead-shot game, I'll stop using lead. But I do question the methodology and tone assumed by some here. If the science is settled on this matter, please show me the studies which settle it. I'm not interested in listening to someone preach from their pulpit. Edit: Also, I'd be interested in seeing someone chime in on the performance characteristics of lead and copper bullets. As I understand it, there are some inherent pro's/con's associated with each type.

Also, why all of a sudden is there this sudden push to ban or de-emphasize lead bullets? How many birds get fried flying over solar panel arrays? How many people are exposing themselves to radiation when they talk on their phone for 2 hours a day or watch TV? How much industrial waste and harmful runoff is generated to produce pretty much everything we buy, use and eat in this consumer culture of ours? I don't question that lead is bad for us and the environment, but the tiny fragments, and often times microscopic residue, we're talking about here barely even counts as a drop in the proverbial bucket when you consider all the other ways we are degrading this environment and our bodily health. If the vocal opponents to lead bullets, here and elsewhere, were truly adhering to some environmental principle, there should be a slue of other action items that take priority over banning lead bullets.

I am willing to acknowledge the results and findings from other studies, but as I have pointed out numerous times now, there should be no reason that we can't conclusively prove this case one way or the other using real-world data and real-world sample populations (of humans). Hypothetical models and studies using livestock are nice, but we as humans have been ingesting lead-shot game meat for a long time now. It shouldn't be hard for someone to analyze the data and make the case that eating lead-shot meat is bad, if in fact there is a case to be made. If the matter is so settled, as you claim it is, why can't you provide me with a link to such a study? Also you should reply to my actual quote blocks next time instead of writing within the quote blocks.

Yep, I agree that there are health risks associated with ingesting lead. I think we've covered this several times over now. Lead is a naturally occurring element, and that is in fact very relevant. In fact, there are several, at least, natural elements found in the earth which are harmful to most living organisms, and within that context, lead is not nearly as harmful as some of these others. I'll take a look at it. But again, why are we talking about a study using pigs? We, as humans, have been eating lead-shot wild game for quite a long time now. Why are there no studies which compare two obvious sample populations (those who do eat lead-shot meat and those who don't) to demonstrate if there any measurable health risks?

That's cool man, and certainly worth considering. But you're talking about a hypothetical model. I'd like to see you present some actual numbers and statistics derived from real-world examples and sample populations (like I did using the 2008 North Dakota study). It's not that I think the CDC's model is a bunch of garbage, but at this point, having used lead to kill our game meat for centuries, there should be no lack of raw data for scientists and statisticians to review and make the case that there are specific and measurable health threats from ingesting wild game meat shot with lead bullets.

I did read the part of the 2008 North Dakota study which stated there were some people who were eating game meat and did have higher lead levels in their blood. Again though, if the US population as a whole has a higher exposure than a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison), and considering that most Americans don't eat wild game meat, what does that say about the health threat from eating lead-shot game relative to other lead sources? I have not read the study on feeding food pantry meat to pigs, though i have heard it referenced. Perhaps you could summarize those talking points which are relevant to this conversation? That piece from the FWS on eagles sounds nice on paper, but there are a lot of unknowns that are left unaddressed: - How many of the eagles died from lead exposure? The article said that 38% of the sample population had lethal amounts of lead in their livers, so right off that indicates that the remaining could have died from other causes. - Do we know that the eagles were getting their lead exposure solely from shot animals? The article certainly didn't say that, though they did assume that shot deer carcasses were the likely culprit. How did they arrive at that assumption? A similar assumption was made about the Condors in California...after the lead ban went into effect, information (which had until then been sat on by an official with CA's fish and wildlife) was released which suggested that lead bullets were not having as big of an effect on the Condors as was previously thought: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/ Again, we all know lead exposure can potentially lead to health issues. The real question that needs to be answered is whether tiny fragments from bullets will have anything other than a negligible effect on us and other animals.

I'm sure they are interesting reads, but what does this have to do with lead exposure in game meat? You're bringing up a lot of tangential topics and studies when the original discussion and title of this whole thread was about lead being used in hunting ammo and the possible health consequences. My suggestion is to stay specific to the original topic and make an argument based on studies/papers which address this issue. No one disputes that lead exposure is very bad for children or that eagles have made a comeback in NY due to better conservation practices. If you want to argue that lead bullets have negative health affects for us and other animals, there are some very simple metrics and measures that you could try to find and reference to make your point...so far I've not seen you do that. I again refer you to the 2008 study conducted in North Dakota where a sample population (which predominantly ate lead-shot venison) had a lower lead exposure relative to the overall US population: https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf Do you have a direct response to the findings I brought up from that study, or do you want to continue on your rant?

I wasn't aware that the CDC had reduced the max amount of lead exposure from 10µg/dl to 5µg/dl. And I understand that children are especially vulnerable to lead exposure, as they are to a bunch of other things. But when the U.S.'s population as a whole has a lead exposure (geometric mean, not arithmetic average) of 1.60 µg/dl while a sample population from North Dakota (where 80% were consuming lead-shot venison meat) only has 1.17 µg/dl, again I ask how much of an affect lead bullets are having on our lead exposure and our health overall. If that study proved anything, it was that there are forms of lead exposure that far supercede the exposure from tiny lead fragments in our meat. You're not being condescending and I welcome a discussion on this. But like I said earlier, no one is arguing that lead doesn't have negative health affects. The million dollar question is whether or not the tiny fragments left from bullet strikes will have any meaningful affect on the environment and its inhabitants (including us). So far, I have not seen any studies that conclusively prove that there is a significant health threat from eating lead-shot game meat, and there are years and years of data from which to draw and make such a case.

I said lead was a naturally occurring element in another thread about this very topic. Yes lead is harmful, but the real question that has yet to receive a definitive answer is whether or not the small amounts deposited by bullets are actually having some measurable effect on other wildlife and humans. There was an often quoted study conducted in North Dakota back in 2008, where about 740 people were surveyed for lead content in their blood (nearly 80% had been consuming wild venison, which the study assumed had been killed with lead bullets). The study can be found here: https://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008%20CDC%20ND_Final_TripReport_5NOV08.pdf And there have been a wide range of interpretations of the study's results: Scientific American claiming that this study conclusively proved that lead bullets "raises lead exposure" : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wild-game-deer-venison-condors-meat-lead-ammunition-ban/ National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) saying that the lead levels found in the study still fall under what the CDC considers to be a safe amount: http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/whitetail-deer/accessories-gear/2008/12/update-lead-your-meat I think the best answer to date is found within the study itself: The µg/dl you see behind each of those numbers stands for micrograms per deciliter which is how the lead content was measured in the blood for those surveyed. Ingesting lead is bad for our health (and for any animal's health). We all know that. Whether or not lead bullets are having any significant affect on our health and other wildlife's health relative to other forms of lead exposure is the million dollar question. And how long have hunters in America, and throughout the world, been using lead to kill game and then harvest and eat the meat? You'd think by now we'd have some confirmed link between eating lead-killed game meat and some disease or sickness. To my knowledge there are no studies proving such an outcome. Listen, if the scientific consensus eventually determines that lead bullets are having an adverse affect on our health, I'll accept that and find another source of ammo (as will most other hunters I'm sure). The problem is that there is no consensus yet, though there are a lot of opinionated websites and media groups that are trying to claim the issue is settled.

I had read that taking big game in water was illegal. I had never seen anything about shooting over water...I'll have to read through the regs again though. I'll spend more time looking for the food sources you mentioned. Thanks for the input. Yeah, I've noticed that even hiking and camping, it's hard to move anywhere without creating some noise...the undergrowth, fallen leaves and sticks are everywhere so every footfall makes a noise. I'd prefer to hunt the deer in the snow as well...tracking and movement should be somewhat easier. But I'm planning for the worst and hoping for the best...if there is no snow, I'll be out there all the same. So there are no Deer Management Permits issued for regular season in the ADK WMU's? Only Buck's during regular season? I had no idea. Well that hunt is going to be a little harder than what I originally anticipated.

I'll be heading into the ADK's for some more remote deer hunting this coming season. I've already spent a few days heading out to areas to scout and get a feel for the terrain and sign. I've been focused so far on the Blue Ridge Wilderness area and the Moose River Plains Wild Forest. I've seen very little in the way of deer sign (scat, hoof prints, ect.), though I think I've come across game trails in these 2 areas. My questions: 1) I've read that deer don't need to drink from bodies of water nearly as much as we do since they get a lot of their water from the plants they eat. Does this match up with people's experiences? Is posting up on a lake shore or creek a good way to get a deer? Is that ethical or legal? I know that shooting an animal in water isn't allowed, but what about shooting one as it stands on the bank and drinks from a lake or other body of water? 2) I've covered a lot of ground during several days of hiking (probably 10-14 miles in total so far). Through the course of that hiking, I've come across more open areas (relative to the rest of the terrain); either blow-down or old clear cuts. Should I focus my scouting and hunting efforts on these areas? As I understand it, deer, even the in ADK's, are more likely to travel and frequent these relatively open areas. 3) Are there any specific plants or trees that deer feed on and I should be on the lookout for as I hike through these wilderness areas? 4) Are the deer in the ADK's as skittish as the deer in Western NY? I know from experience that the deer in my area of NY (near Rochester) were absolutely loathe to move outside of morning and sunset hours. Once the light hits and the day begins in earnest, they tend to sit in place, likely because they know that hunters are out and about. Are the deer in the ADK's the same, or are they less educated on hunter activity? Any feedback would be awesome.

So you're asking the guy who doesn't pay attention very well to help you? And how did this thread on the Moose hunting bill turn into one about Dove hunting? I know we are all hunters here, but shouldn't we have separate threads for different topics?

How exactly is Cuomo "in tune" with hunters? He has the occasional letter in the DEC magazine? He poses with a deer hunter for a photo every now and then? Cuomo is a politician, and barring any extensive backwoods experience he may have (which I've not heard of, but then again I haven't researched much about his past) his "support" for hunting seems to only go so far as is needed to bring in the rural, blue-collar votes (as is the case with many other politicians). I won't get into the back-and-forth on the SAFE Act other than to say that most hunters I know are pro 2nd amendment and don't like it, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. As for fishing for red herring, it's funny that you bring that up. Your signature talks about building support for dove hunting, while you don't seem to have any problems with trashing other people's ideas/opinions that differ from your own on issues like firearm legislation or bear hunting. I realize others on here have been side-tracking this thread with overtly political comments, but you've also been doing a bit of pot-stirring yourself, far too much of it in my opinion to be calling other people out. As for how we reframe trophy hunting, I think education is a good approach. Educating hunters on proper game management (truthfully, I find that the average hunter already knows quite a bit on the local wildlife and their ecological role in the region vs the average non-hunter) and educating the public, who by and large know very little about hunting, wild-life management, land management, ect. If non-hunters are using HSUS and PETA videos to learn about hunting, then of course they're going to get a very one-sided narrative. Government wildlife agencies and hunter conservation groups should at least provide information to the public, engage in conferences, public meetings, ect. to explain how hunting takes place and is managed for long term sustainability.