Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-01-2013, 07:02 AM   #41
Big Spruce
Member
 
Big Spruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WNY
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberghost View Post
That's the thing, when the fees were raised it was sold as "needed increase in revenue to maintain current programs"..
Then the raised revenues were "held hostage" (by the budgeting office) and attempts were made to transfer some of that money into the general fund.

Now look at the state of our fish stocking programs (for one example) - the Rome hatchery outbreak and loss of trout was a direct result of understaffed hatchery.
DEC has taken the brunt of the budget cuts and it's showing (everywhere you look) while, last I heard, there's still unspent/non allocated money in the EPF..

I'd rather see a proposal for funding the biologists and foresters at DEC and fully funding the promised habitat and stocking programs (not to mention the backlog of forest preserve acquisitions, which are a whole separate animal).
Timberghost, You are correct, for example just this week our local news station did a story on Montezuma National Refuge. It has both federal and state allocated funds. In order for a couple of species to continue to survive there was some minor improvements that were needed to be made. The improvements will also help all wildlife in Montezuma.

The price was a mere 750,000 over 3 years in two stages . Only a $106.00 in cost per acre to improve an ecologically important region for the whole northeast.

But it was labeled as waste full spending. Bull Crap, That's some of the cheapest improvement cost I've ever heard of, but may now be cut. What a crock.
Big Spruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:11 AM   #42
rADK
Member
 
rADK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Did I miss something? He took away everyone's right to bear arms? No one can own a gun? Funny that I wouldn't notice something that obvious?
I suppose under this rationale we could also require registration to practice religion, or to speak on one's own property. It doesn't violate religious or speech rights per se.
rADK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 09:40 AM   #43
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
The only interpretation of the Constitution that matters is the one being done on 1 First Street.

Registration of religion could violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

The SAFE act doesn't necessarily violate the 2nd Amendment. But it certainly could be viewed that way by the current court.

There are 2 cases that are relevant to the power of legislature to regulate ownership of firearms in addition to the Commerce Clause gorilla.

Chicago and DC cases, which defined "arms" as the common weapons of the day to include semi-auto handguns which A. Hamilton wishes he had back then. Generally speaking those cases also preserved the State's power to legislate regulation regarding gun onwership (up to the point of banning). For instance it's fine for NYC to strictly regulate handgun permits but its not ok to require a shotgun be unassembled and locked up which effectively made the weapon useless for home defense.

The Supreme court also declined to declare the 1990 NJ assault weapons ban unconstitutional. They really have always interpreted the 2nd amendment as deferring the power to states to an extent (away from the Feds) that the Sate don't forbid common firearms of the day. Making Cuomo's job easier than Obama's.

It'll be interesting to see if this ban on certain "military style" rifles is heard by the Supreme Court if it survives the NY Courts.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 02:26 PM   #44
Uncle Alvah
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Coastal North Carolina
Posts: 111
I honestly don't recall the last time I saw a thread anywhere with two separate and complete discussions woven into the same thread!
And civil no less!
There may be hope for the world yet!

Uncle Alvah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 04:00 PM   #45
bobadkhunter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: st.lawrence county
Posts: 185
What I don't like , being a trapper and a hunter(sportsman) is that the trapper would seem to be losing his identity. He's proposing rolling the trapping licence into the hunting licence. How am I am going to be counted going forward on trapping issues when now the DEC won't even know how many tapping licences are sold....and I just purchcased a lifetime trapping licence in 2009 also, I just don't like this new structure at all.
bobadkhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 05:44 PM   #46
Uncle Alvah
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Coastal North Carolina
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobadkhunter View Post
What I don't like , being a trapper and a hunter(sportsman) is that the trapper would seem to be losing his identity. He's proposing rolling the trapping licence into the hunting licence. How am I am going to be counted going forward on trapping issues when now the DEC won't even know how many tapping licences are sold....and I just purchcased a lifetime trapping licence in 2009 also, I just don't like this new structure at all.
Good point!
Uncle Alvah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:00 PM   #47
Connecticut Yankee
Connecticut Yankee
 
Connecticut Yankee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 689
Couple of points, There are a few states that have reciprocal agreements to match out of state sportsmans fees, good Idea.

I too felt the $140 for hunting, archery and muzzleloading licenses just didn't make sense, the new fees do seem more in tune with reality.

My Ruger Mark II .22 pistol has a standard 10 round magazine, now I can only load 7 rounds, (if I lived in NY an had a permit), good thing you only fire 5 rounds at a time in Bullseye competition.

Actually you can legally own a machine gun, BAR or Thompson, all you need is a Class III federal permit this is $200 and a very detailed background check by the FBI. In actuality having to have a permit similar to the Pistol permit for an AR-15 type rifle would be the sensible approach to this issue, same with magazines over 10 rounds. Also having to show legal proof of owning a firearm to purchase ammunition would make sense. Here in Connecticut such a law exists for any ammo that is considered handgun ammo. Recently I took my son who is 20 years old and his girl friend to the range so we could expose her to the shooting sports. My son went to the local Dicks Sporting Goods store to buy some .22 ammunition so he wouldn't be using all of mine, A nice gesture. BUT, because he was under 21 and didn't have a pistol permit he couldn't but the ammo because it was handgun ammuntion. He probably could have bought a box of 28 ga. shells for his side by side though.

Oh well, at least we don't have parking fees at the trail heads and put ins .....Yet.
John M.
Connecticut Yankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 07:54 AM   #48
Limekiln
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 511
There may be hope yet....

"State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly signed an order granting the request for a hearing by plaintiffs who are challenging Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to waive the three-day review usually required before votes on bills, according to LoHud.com...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-gun-controls/
__________________
"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Limekiln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2013, 01:13 PM   #49
Big Spruce
Member
 
Big Spruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WNY
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limekiln View Post
There may be hope yet....

"State Supreme Court Justice Gerald Connolly signed an order granting the request for a hearing by plaintiffs who are challenging Gov. Andrew Cuomo's decision to waive the three-day review usually required before votes on bills, according to LoHud.com...."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...-gun-controls/
I feel a review of the new law is a good idea. Thank You for sharing the link
Big Spruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 12:51 PM   #50
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobadkhunter View Post
What I don't like , being a trapper and a hunter(sportsman) is that the trapper would seem to be losing his identity. He's proposing rolling the trapping licence into the hunting licence. How am I am going to be counted going forward on trapping issues when now the DEC won't even know how many tapping licences are sold....and I just purchcased a lifetime trapping licence in 2009 also, I just don't like this new structure at all.
Uncle Alvah wrote "good point" and I second it. Unless there's a way to figure out who will legally trap with the purchase of the new multi-license, I can see how meaningful furbearer management could become a problem. Maybe it will be as simple as checking boxes of intended uses (e.g. big game, small game, trapping, all of the above). I don't know.
St.Regis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 04:21 PM   #51
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
There still will be carcass tags and seals. It won't tell them how many are out there trapping though, that's true just the product of trapping.
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2013, 08:00 PM   #52
bobadkhunter
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: st.lawrence county
Posts: 185
....its like the SAFE act, just seems to be poorly planned, totally rushed. Its(DEC licence plan) not detailed at all as far as trappers are concerned at all . Currently a new trapper whether older or young has to go thru a education courseto get a trappers licence. How is a new trapper to get any kind of trapper ed.(no licence to recieve)? Is the DEC going to incorporate a trapping section into their hunter education class....add another day to get your certificate(hunter cert.). I think alot of people would agree trapping furbearers is totally different than hunting them. .......again its Albany buracrats(sp) not thinking everything thru......just...rush, rush ,rush , and of course in my opinion not getting it right again.
bobadkhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 12:54 AM   #53
RichieC
Member
 
RichieC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Did I miss something? He took away everyone's right to bear arms? No one can own a gun? Funny that I wouldn't notice something that obvious?

Just out of curiosity, can anyone tell me how large a magazine was in a musket? And how many shots it could get off in 60 seconds? How many assault rifles and semiautomatics did the Continental Army have? How many guns were Africans and African Americans allowed to own? How about Japanese Americans during WWII?

I guess it's all in ones perspective.
I suppose, as is the rest of their documents, they were very careful how they worded everything. Point to us where they mention the word musket. Nor do they say anything like" the peoples arms need to be less effective then anyone else's". The intent wasn't to make them subservient to any one, it was, as is the rest of that document, to make them equal.

But using your very same logic, the government could limit your 1st amendment rights in terms of technology. AS our forefathers never conceived of the technology of amplifiers, that allow a speech to be heard by 500,000 or a 1,000,000 people in a single gathering , or that a single person could speak and be seen by a billion people at once, or that someone in their living room could type out a message that crosses the globe in a second. WHat would you say if they said Freedom of speech is limited to the strength of you unaided voice, that electronic printed or modern printers are out, and forget TV.


The aim of SOME in government is to abolish the 2nd Amendment. New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz filed a bill on January 29, 2013 which would require all gun owners to obtain at least $1 million in liability insurance, projected costs would be about $1600 a year. I've read your posts, and I know you are an intelligent man, what do you think this is for? Especially as no insurance ever covers intentional losses or illegal activities... thus you tell me why he'd even suggest it?

The number of cartridges most semi -auto handguns hold is 9 since the 1800's, the new illegal Cuomo law says you can now only have 7. Illegal as to how it was rammed through, you'll be seeing it fall apart i around April as that is when Cuomo has to provide proof that it isn't an infringement on the 2nd amendment, and if he can't it will be struck down... and it is. It will also fall apart as a legislation isn't supposed to ever get through that quick, without input or discussion... It was so hastily written, it makes police officers also subject to partially filled clips against an ememy that will certainlty have theirs maxed, out. They now have to make an amendment, which opens it up, and from what I've read, it may not survive that.

Both these laws are directed specifically at legal firearm owners... and these are just the tip of the iceberg... THATS what he was talking about.
RichieC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 02:06 AM   #54
OntarioSkiBum
Member
 
OntarioSkiBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 315
When would the new fees be introduced? Good thing I never bothered to fish when in the adks this winter.

Canadian perspective on the 2nd amendment: I honestly believe the whole NRA, pro-gun movement was drawn up by some rich Republicans who needed Joe Public on their side. Sure there's the 2nd amendment, but there are a lot of people out there who may possibly be better served voting Democrat, but don't because of their guns.
OntarioSkiBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 07:09 AM   #55
Big Spruce
Member
 
Big Spruce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WNY
Posts: 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntarioSkiBum View Post
When would the new fees be introduced? Good thing I never bothered to fish when in the adks this winter.

Canadian perspective on the 2nd amendment: I honestly believe the whole NRA, pro-gun movement was drawn up by some rich Republicans who needed Joe Public on their side. Sure there's the 2nd amendment, but there are a lot of people out there who may possibly be better served voting Democrat, but don't because of their guns.
Spoken like a true Socialist, please don't try to compare your gun views and laws to ours. I have spent much time hunting and traveling in Canada and I will say this, you folks have your opinions and we have ours.

Not trying to attack you personally, but it's this politically charged B.S. type of post that most here can live without.

This post has been civil and polite keep it there please sir.

I wouldn't worry about the fishing cost for the NR licence it will start soon, but the decrease is minimal.

Spruce
Big Spruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 07:49 AM   #56
Limekiln
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by OntarioSkiBum View Post
When would the new fees be introduced? Good thing I never bothered to fish when in the adks this winter.

Canadian perspective on the 2nd amendment: I honestly believe the whole NRA, pro-gun movement was drawn up by some rich Republicans who needed Joe Public on their side. Sure there's the 2nd amendment, but there are a lot of people out there who may possibly be better served voting Democrat, but don't because of their guns.
First, congratulations on writing what may well be one of the most uneducated posts I've seen in a while. You may want to do a little research on the Canadian long gun registry, how it worked out, why it was eventually dumped, and what it cost you as a taxpaying citizen of that great country.

Second, I have many Canadian friends who feel much differently, so maybe you should clarify that this is your personal opinion, not the opinion of all Canadians.

Third, if you feel that strongly about gun control why bother visiting and posting on the Hunting and Fishing section of an American outdoors forum?
__________________
"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Limekiln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 08:17 AM   #57
viewseeker
Wright 2-18-12
 
viewseeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: fulton, NY: AVATAR: W46r completion
Posts: 727
I own a lifetime license, would i get a rebate since I paid it in on lump sum??

I agree the cost of hunting in a state I pay taxes already to is "TOO DAM HIGH"!!
__________________
ADK 46-R # 6750W
CL-50 #51
CATSKILLS 9/35
NPT--Complete 7-6-13
viewseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 08:39 AM   #58
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieC View Post
I suppose, as is the rest of their documents, they were very careful how they worded everything. Point to us where they mention the word musket. Nor do they say anything like" the peoples arms need to be less effective then anyone else's". The intent wasn't to make them subservient to any one, it was, as is the rest of that document, to make them equal.

But using your very same logic, the government could limit your 1st amendment rights in terms of technology. AS our forefathers never conceived of the technology of amplifiers, that allow a speech to be heard by 500,000 or a 1,000,000 people in a single gathering , or that a single person could speak and be seen by a billion people at once, or that someone in their living room could type out a message that crosses the globe in a second. WHat would you say if they said Freedom of speech is limited to the strength of you unaided voice, that electronic printed or modern printers are out, and forget TV.


The aim of SOME in government is to abolish the 2nd Amendment. New York Assemblyman Felix Ortiz filed a bill on January 29, 2013 which would require all gun owners to obtain at least $1 million in liability insurance, projected costs would be about $1600 a year. I've read your posts, and I know you are an intelligent man, what do you think this is for? Especially as no insurance ever covers intentional losses or illegal activities... thus you tell me why he'd even suggest it?

The number of cartridges most semi -auto handguns hold is 9 since the 1800's, the new illegal Cuomo law says you can now only have 7. Illegal as to how it was rammed through, you'll be seeing it fall apart i around April as that is when Cuomo has to provide proof that it isn't an infringement on the 2nd amendment, and if he can't it will be struck down... and it is. It will also fall apart as a legislation isn't supposed to ever get through that quick, without input or discussion... It was so hastily written, it makes police officers also subject to partially filled clips against an ememy that will certainlty have theirs maxed, out. They now have to make an amendment, which opens it up, and from what I've read, it may not survive that.

Both these laws are directed specifically at legal firearm owners... and these are just the tip of the iceberg... THATS what he was talking about.
Lsts see, both of those laws (concerning firearms) are directed at legal firearms owners. Duh should they be directed at automobile owners?

Seriously, I agree that there are some who would take away all guns, but just the fact that there are so many gun owners in Congress as well as the fact that so many American voters are gun owners makes me sure that guns will never be banned. But the cry of the other extreme (those who seem to think that guns are the answer to everything) that any legislation to limit or regulate the use of firearms is the beginning of "getting rid of all the guns".

BTW, the second amendment is not worded in such a way to say that there cannot be ANY regulation of legislation concerning firearms.

Here is the logic behind my current beliefs. First, when writing the Constitution and its amendments the FF in their wildest imagination had no idea what technology would breed in the next couple of hundred years. They couldn't have! The reason behind the second amendment was to prevent anther country or even a group in America to conquer this country (as the settlers had) by force of arms. I also believe that had the FF had been able to project the technology advances much of the Constitution would have been worded differently. I believe that the Constitution was meant to be a living document, good for a start, but changing to meet the times.

When we look at US History since the writing of the Constitution, we see that it wasn't perfect and that things had to be changed to meet the times, especially if we assume that the intent of the Constitution was meant to meet the demands. We know today that until the Civil Rights legislation of the 60's. all people were not created equal. It required Legislation to enforce that.

Today, we have the war on terrorism, and as a result, many of the"guarantees" of the Constitution concenring privacy, search and seizure, etc, have been and are being eroded in the name of National Security. So, if those guarantees can be removed or changed then why not the second amendment (which is broad). Why aren't the people who are up in arms (pun intended) over the second amendment not also opposing the other changes?

As for my personal beliefs about firearms. (which have changed some since I was a youth). 1st of all, I grew up hunting We had to shoot game in order to survive on the Rez in the 40's. I also spent multiple years in the military where I became very knowledgable and proficient with firearms. I have used firearms against fellow humans during the Asian war.I believe that people should have a right to own firearms but not all firearms. I don't think you need an assault rifle to hunt or target shoot and if you can't bring down your prey with seven shots then you either need to learn to shoot or not be hunting at all. And since hunting today is a sport, then the thrill of the chase and the ability to get close enough to your target to be effective is part of it. Therefore high powered ammunition and copes hould be unnecessary.

Something needs to be done o try to limit uns getting into the hands of people who are mentally unstable. Because contrary to common PR "guns do kill people". A person cannot shoot another person if he doesn't have a gun. I don't have any facts in front of me, but I think that more people are shot by non criminals in moments of rage or jealously, then by a felon committing a crime. The Guns used in Newtown were legally acquired by a law aiding citizen.

So, something needs to be done. I'm not smart enough to know what the answer is, but I do know that the politics and personalization has to be taken out of it. Innocent people are dying and somehow the madness has to stop.

I DO think that TV, movies and video Games plays a part a well. Not to mention the sensatiolism in the news coverage. I think things have to be done on several levels.

But until reason enters the dialog instead of everyone finger pointing at everyoneelse, then there will be no solutions.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 08:52 AM   #59
Limekiln
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
The Guns used in Newtown were legally acquired by a law aiding citizen.
Just to clarify- You are correct in that they were legally acquired by Lanza's mother and/or father. But you missed the part about her being killed and the guns stolen by a mentally unstable mass murderer. The point being that Adam Lanza did not own guns, and that further gun restrictions would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy.
__________________
"Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."
Limekiln is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2013, 08:58 AM   #60
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Limekiln View Post
Just to clarify- You are correct in that they were legally acquired by Lanza's mother and/or father. But you missed the part about her being killed and the guns stolen by a mentally unstable mass murderer. The point being that Adam Lanza did not own guns, and that further gun restrictions would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy.
Although the recent spate of mass shooting has taken the headlines, the real problem is inner-city illegal handgun violence. NYC tried to implement stop and frisk but every liberal around the country came in to defend people's Constitutional rights. Why aren't they helping defend the rights of gun owners?

__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.