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

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > General Forum Related Topics > "By the Fireside"
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-23-2007, 08:35 AM   #41
aaronlawson
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Remsen, NY
Posts: 66
Well said Marzrw, I think we've all seen cases where reason gets trampled by spin. The end result is we elect politicians who seem to be pro-outdoors, but who end up selling us down the river by other means than the bogeyman of "they're taking away our guns!!"

I don't think Pataki was much of a hunter, any more than Bush is, but Pataki really did a lot of good things for the outdoors in New York. I see the tangible effect of this when I hike, fish and hunt on the lands that he had added to the park. He was a pretty lazy governor in almost every other area though...

We should remember that the NRA doesn't give a hoot about hunting, and they've made this pretty clear: they care about guns. I like to hunt but I find the kinds of extreme positions (the whole "jackbooted thugs smashing down your door" characterizations, etc.) taken by the NRA to be more than just a little distracting from the real threat to hunters: our disappearing access to wilderness. This is especially striking in New York where sooooo much land is posted, essentially everything that isn't state land is off limits. This wasn't the case 20 years ago. Where I come from in Massachusetts this wasn't the case, but the amount of state land in Mass. is much less that NY. If posting mania comes to Mass., you would effectively eliminate most hunting (and fishing for that matter).

Think of the kind of damage just one Bush administration-style appointee could do in New York in this position. You could use all the leg hold traps you ever dreamed of, but where in the stump farm would you put them?

That's the danger I see!

-Aaron
aaronlawson is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:05 PM   #42
Old Rivers
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Schenectady County
Posts: 168
As long as DEC is responsible for both environmental issues and fish & wildlife the commissioner should be a strong advocate for both. The only way Grannis could be qualigied to serve as DEC commissioner is if Fish & Wildlife was a separate & equal division of NYS gov't. Fish & wildlife laws & regulations should be controlled by science & biology, not by politicians & lawyers. I have written to both my NYS Senator & Joe Bruno asking them to not approve the nomination.
Old Rivers is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:21 PM   #43
Qtip
Member
 
Qtip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: central NY
Posts: 69
I have generally stayed away from this thread as I thought it may get too emotional or heated. I am surprised it hasn't and I compliment all. I just want to add my two cents and that's all it is; just MY humble opinion. I'm not looking for debate.
1)Gun ownership- The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting but with the citizens right to keep and bear firearms. Our forefathers had the vision to include this so that if the government ever turned to tyranny the peolpe themselves could change that; and through force of arms if necessary, just as they did during the Revolution. All other rights basically hinge upon this. Many folks get rather emotional on this gun issue because those that would abolish ALL ownership of firearms by ALL citizens seem like they will continually chip away. And there are groups that have that aim in mind. Make no mistake about it. So it is a right that is jealously fought to protect even by many that don't hunt.
2)County vs. DEC regulation-As overseer of our fish and wildlife I would rather trust the state on this one. I firmly believe in a domino affect that may start out with trapping and later include hunting, fishing and other outdoor activities.
3)Leg hold traps-Are they the most humane? No. Anything that ends an animal's life quickly and cleanly is more humane. However, nature herself; which most of us are interested in protecting is also the cruelest of all. Starvation and disease are far more cruel. If a resource can be used without destroying it then I see nothing wrong with it.
4)Human population-I will not get into my beliefs of faith. But when we speak of population control consider Communist China where the government grants or denies permission. Consider also how many rights the Chinese people DON'T have.
5)Appointment of Grannis-Given the general animosity that exists between upstate-downstate I think Spitzer would have been better served to search for someone from upstate even if he were from a metro area. Most folks from the NYC/downstate area are more concerned with pollution and enviormental regs. while the majority of fish & wildlife issues are more upstate if you catch my drift.
There are many sportsmen who would like to see a return to a Fish & Wildlife Dept. separate from the DEC.

Like I said; just my humble opinion.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
Qtip is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:26 PM   #44
Adirondack_hunter
Southern Adirondack Hunter
 
Adirondack_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Falls
Posts: 296
Have to agree but....

Aaron I have to agree with your entire post but ...this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronlawson View Post
This is especially striking in New York where sooooo much land is posted, essentially everything that isn't state land is off limits. This wasn't the case 20 years ago. Where I come from in Massachusetts this wasn't the case, but the amount of state land in Mass. is much less that NY. If posting mania comes to Mass., you would effectively eliminate most hunting (and fishing for that matter).
-Aaron
When I'm not hunting the Dacks (state property) I am mostly hunting private posted land. Just because it's posted does not mean you can't hunt it. It means simply that you need to ask and get permission. It means that you simply can walk where ever you want with all disregard to who owns what.
I am a bowhunter and one thing I hate more than anything is sitting on posted land in a treestand and having some person, "free wanderer" walk across the property I worked to get permission to hunt.
Simply put, state land generally equals go ahead, private land (posted or not) should be off limits without permission. Yet, that is not how the law is written. Want to tweek a landowner? Walk into an unposted woodlot and ruin his day hunting. Then watch how fast he posts his property just because it was the straw that broke the camels back. Rude and disrespectful hunters have screwed themselves!
So many people post their land for reasons similar to the reason I described. Can you blame them? I'm sure you really don't blame them either.
A few posting links
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dle/faq.htm#post
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/d...d/posting.html
To the OP. I don't sign petitions but I do make phone calls and write personal letters. Thanks for creating the thread.
__________________
"Every piece of venison I eat reminds me of my forefathers and the joy the whitetail brought to them"
-- Adkhunter
Adkhunter Reflective Arrow Wraps
Rockclimbing.com NY Route Editor
Adirondack_hunter is offline  
Old 02-23-2007, 06:27 PM   #45
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtip View Post
5)Appointment of Grannis-Given the general animosity that exists between upstate-downstate I think Spitzer would have been better served to search for someone from upstate even if he were from a metro area. Most folks from the NYC/downstate area are more concerned with pollution and enviormental regs. while the majority of fish & wildlife issues are more upstate if you catch my drift.
There are many sportsmen who would like to see a return to a Fish & Wildlife Dept. separate from the DEC.

Like I said; just my humble opinion.

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
Ah, but the catch 22 is that if you don't prevent pollution and protect the environment, then there will be no wildlife to hunt. So everyone loses.

I think that Fish and Wildlife should be separate form the DEC, as should the foresters. they automatically have some conflict of interest when it comes to environmental issues.

But the bottom line is that if every group looks out only for their own interests, there won't be anything left to be interested in.
__________________
"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  
Old 02-23-2007, 07:33 PM   #46
marzrw
Member
 
marzrw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Ah, but the catch 22 is that if you don't prevent pollution and protect the environment, then there will be no wildlife to hunt. So everyone loses.

I think that Fish and Wildlife should be separate form the DEC, as should the foresters. they automatically have some conflict of interest when it comes to environmental issues.

But the bottom line is that if every group looks out only for their own interests, there won't be anything left to be interested in.
It just can't be said any better than this...To look at one view, is to look at the world with blinders on...We all do it at times, but we all need to look at the whole picture...Most hunters and trappers are very serious, respectful, honest, caring, environmentally consciencious individuals who should and always will have the right to bear arms, no matter what the propaganda says about a certain politician or appointee taking their guns or rights to guns away, it simply is not going to happen, not in our lifetimes...As Redhawk suggests, instead of looking out for our own individual interests, we need to look at the whole issue and try to make as sound a decision as we can...If then you still oppose a person for their belief, then certainly vote against him...That's why guys and girls continue to die for this country...
__________________
"The way I see it, you're hooked.Trout have you. Another soul lost." Elias Wonder, The Earth is Enough by Harry Middleton
marzrw is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 03:05 PM   #47
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
I'm posting a link to an article, not because it directly relates to this thread, but to show what can happen when gun culture jumps to an extreme viewpoint on a minor issue. In this case, the NRA and other extreme gun-o-philes supporting the use of assault weapons for hunting. The intolorance towards even slightly different viewpoints is a little alarming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 03:31 PM   #48
Qtip
Member
 
Qtip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: central NY
Posts: 69
marzrw & redhawk,

If you re-read my point #5 you will see that my intention was to show that upstaters are the ones with more concerns for fish & wildlife. Of course all sportsmen are concerned with pollution and our natural resources. Maybe I should have worded it differently so you could "catch my drift".

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
Qtip is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 03:46 PM   #49
danceswithflies
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: catskills
Posts: 99
A little alarming? Nowhere did it say that Zumbo called for the banning of assault weapons, he simply suggested that they had no place in the "sport" of hunting. Given the reaction from the NRA, I think the supporters of the second amendment should pay a little more attention to the first.

Incidentally, I recently ran across a discussion of prairie dog hunting, wherein it was being suggested that they were a threat to grazing cattle and therefore, despite their status as threatened or endangered, should be eliminated from the ecosystem. The respondent, with tongue in cheek, said, "Oh, is that what caused the near extinction of the millions of bison who once grazed the same plains? They fell into prairie dog holes?"
danceswithflies is offline  
Old 02-25-2007, 03:52 PM   #50
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtip View Post
marzrw & redhawk,

If you re-read my point #5 you will see that my intention was to show that upstaters are the ones with more concerns for fish & wildlife. Of course all sportsmen are concerned with pollution and our natural resources. Maybe I should have worded it differently so you could "catch my drift".

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
I caught your drift.

My point is that pollution and natural resources should be the FIRST concern for DEC and everyone else and that Fish and game and forestry and recreation should not be the the primary factors.

I also believe that anyone who is ecologically minded understands the necessity of the other factors involved in keeping a balance.
__________________
"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  
Old 02-26-2007, 11:22 AM   #51
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtip View Post
marzrw & redhawk,

If you re-read my point #5 you will see that my intention was to show that upstaters are the ones with more concerns for fish & wildlife. Of course all sportsmen are concerned with pollution and our natural resources. Maybe I should have worded it differently so you could "catch my drift".

Qtip
Soli Deo Gloria!
Downstaters make up the majority when it comes to how the vote goes.Downstaters are a very mixed and diversified group with many believing that the GREAT OUTDOORS is the bus stop at the corner.Many could give a hoot about our natural resources because they have never experienced them.
If we don't recognize this you can be sure that the elected officials will not care about the funding of DEC in the future.
chairrock is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 01:35 PM   #52
Adkleaddog
Member
 
Adkleaddog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: McIntyre Range from Redfield
Posts: 249
Signed, Sealed and delivered...

Good points by all...
__________________
"If You Ain't the Lead Dog,
The Scenery Never Changes"

(Age Old Yukon Saying)
Adkleaddog is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 09:43 PM   #53
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbitling View Post
I'm posting a link to an article, not because it directly relates to this thread, but to show what can happen when gun culture jumps to an extreme viewpoint on a minor issue. In this case, the NRA and other extreme gun-o-philes supporting the use of assault weapons for hunting. The intolorance towards even slightly different viewpoints is a little alarming.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17307316/?GT1=9033

hobbitling...you link didn't work...could you explain or reference me to another article? I THINK I know what recent event you were linking, but I'd like to be sure before I address your comments.
ken999 is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:26 AM   #54
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,466
Redhawk wrote:

"Number one. Leghold Traps ARE inhumane. Anyone believing otherwise should wear one for a few hours. There are other types of traps."

"Finally the argument that the trapping prevents diseases like rabies is actually the opposite of the truth. Traping the older animals (which are the ones who usually get caught, removes adults ho have natural immunities to pass on to siblings and actually helps to control rabies."


Redhawk, are these facts or your opinions? I'm very interested where you got these if they are indeed facts. However, if they are your opinions, you don't have to tell me where they came from.

St.Regis
St.Regis is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:47 AM   #55
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
What redhawk might have been referring to is "herd immunity" which means that if a certain percentage of a population is immune, it is very difficult for a disease to spread through that population, since there are so few carriers. when the immune adults are removed, a baby boom may occur, resulting in a large population of susceptible animals. Also, some immunity is genetic, and killing off those immune animals removes them, and their immune genes from the reproductive pool.

Just to clarify, immunity cannot be passed between animals. The one exception is that immediately after birth the mother produces a special kind of milk (colostrum)that contains antibodies which are absorbed into the system of the young, thus confering temporary immunity to everything the mother is immune to. That lasts around 3 months after weaning.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:45 AM   #56
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,466
Hobbitling, I understand what you are saying, but rabies immunity is, for all essential purposes, non-existent. For example, in raccoons, which are somewhat social animals, rabies outbreaks can virtually wipe out the bulk of the population. Survivors are distanced from the carriers by gaps. Simply put, trapping creates gaps.
St.Regis is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 11:59 AM   #57
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by St.Regis View Post
Survivors are distanced from the carriers by gaps. Simply put, trapping creates gaps.
Well said.
chairrock is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 12:12 PM   #58
coolrobc
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 321
OK, this raises a question that I didn't ask previously. Since when is disease control one of the primary reasons for trapping?

I've honestly never heard that given as a reason. I had friends that trapped as a kid, and I know of a few people who still trap, but I've never heard that before I read the justification in that legislation.
__________________
-Rob

There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot. - Steven Wright
coolrobc is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:11 PM   #59
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
OK, this raises a question that I didn't ask previously. Since when is disease control one of the primary reasons for trapping?

.
I would never say it was the primary reason , but I would say it is one of the valuable side effects of the activity.
chairrock is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 01:37 PM   #60
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by St.Regis View Post
Redhawk wrote:

"Number one. Leghold Traps ARE inhumane. Anyone believing otherwise should wear one for a few hours. There are other types of traps."

"Finally the argument that the trapping prevents diseases like rabies is actually the opposite of the truth. Traping the older animals (which are the ones who usually get caught, removes adults ho have natural immunities to pass on to siblings and actually helps to control rabies."


Redhawk, are these facts or your opinions? I'm very interested where you got these if they are indeed facts. However, if they are your opinions, you don't have to tell me where they came from.

St.Regis

The statement about trapping preventing diseases like rabies being a myth, I actually garnered from a wildlife biology site. Should have bookmarked it. Of interest is the fact that other then sportsmens and hunting and trapping associations, no proof exists that trapping does prevent the spread of diseases. I wish i could find the link, I'll keep looking. It was very powerful because in a five year study, instances of rabies and other diseases were proportionately higher in areas that were trapped then in areas that were not.

As far as the statement about leg traps being inhumane, that's my opinion along with many others. Since there is no way to interview an animal that has been caught in one and get its opinion, I always have an option. I simply ask anyone who believes that they are not inhumane to step into a leg hold trap and then stand in it for about twenty minutes. Anyone doing so will change my opinion. To date, no takers. So my opinion hasn't changed.
__________________
"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  
Closed Thread


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 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

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.