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 03-01-2007, 01:40 PM   #61
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
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.

So then, you would advocating trapping only in those areas where there are outbreaks of rabies?
__________________
"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 03-01-2007, 01:45 PM   #62
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by chairrock View Post
I would never say it was the primary reason , but I would say it is one of the valuable side effects of the activity.
But if it's not the primary reason for trapping, and in setting the traps, there is no way the trapper would know if there were any rabies in the area, then how can it be "a valuable side effect of trapping"?

What are the "main effects" of trapping? What trapping requires the use of leg hold traps only, in lieu of another more humane trap or method of removal?
__________________
"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 03-01-2007, 03:20 PM   #63
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,466
Redhawk wrote: "So then, you would advocating trapping only in those areas where there are outbreaks of rabies?"

Nope. One of many reasons I advocate trapping is to control the populations before there are outbreaks of disease. Also, rabies is only one disease...there is mange, parvo, tularemia, Tyzzer's, roundworm, Lyme, etc.

I disagree with you on the issue of leghold (foothold) traps. These types of traps are an effective tool for taking many species of furbearers. They are much more effective in many situations than other forms of traps (bodygrips, snares, cage traps). Currently in NY, snares are illegal and the largest bobygrip that can be used on land is 7x7". Although many furbearers can be caught in bodygrips and cages, some species like fox and coyote will usually avoid these traps. That leaves the foothold. Properly sized footholds do minimum damage to the target animal. Modifications to foothold traps can be made to further reduce or eliminate injury (e.g. multiple swivels, offset jaws, shock springs, padded jaws, tension adjustable pans). Many stock traps come with one or more of these features. Also, foothold traps used in and around water can be rigged to dispatch an animal quickly.

Foothold traps are not inhumane if used properly. Allowing animals to overpopulate and die from disease or starvation is.
St.Regis is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 04:18 PM   #64
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: "So then, you would advocating trapping only in those areas where there are outbreaks of rabies?"

Nope. One of many reasons I advocate trapping is to control the populations before there are outbreaks of disease. Also, rabies is only one disease...there is mange, parvo, tularemia, Tyzzer's, roundworm, Lyme, etc.
Ah, Kill them before they catch something, even if their healthy, Got it.

Why not just apply that to everything then? We could wipe out all the Africans, because they seem to be the most susceptible to aids and HIV, and of course we might as well take precautions and cull out the non-hetrosexuals as well. Might as well get proactive and prevent it, eh? We can probably also help to eliminate aids and hiv along with hepatitus if we get rid of everyone taking or known to have taken drugs. Let's get rid of the Chinese and the Koreans because they seem to be the main carriers of the bird flu.
Wait, why not cull out all the domesticated animals to ensure there are no rabies outbreaks? Might as well slaughter all the cows to make sure that Mad Cow disease doesn't get out of hand. I mean all the above mentioned diseases threaten humans much more then a possible rabies outbreak among raccons. Don't more people get bit by rabid dogs then rabid raccoons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by St.Regis View Post
I disagree with you on the issue of leghold (foothold) traps. These types of traps are an effective tool for taking many species of furbearers. They are much more effective in many situations than other forms of traps (bodygrips, snares, cage traps). Currently in NY, snares are illegal and the largest bobygrip that can be used on land is 7x7". Although many furbearers can be caught in bodygrips and cages, some species like fox and coyote will usually avoid these traps. That leaves the foothold. Properly sized footholds do minimum damage to the target animal. Modifications to foothold traps can be made to further reduce or eliminate injury (e.g. multiple swivels, offset jaws, shock springs, padded jaws, tension adjustable pans). Many stock traps come with one or more of these features. Also, foothold traps used in and around water can be rigged to dispatch an animal quickly.

Foothold traps are not inhumane if used properly. Allowing animals to overpopulate and die from disease or starvation is.
And banning the sale and use of automatic weapons will lead to the banning of all guns completely overthrow of the country by immigrants.

Justifications for doing the things that are done. Spin. Sanitize.

You'll convince me the leg hold traps are humane when you allow spring one on your ankle and stay in it for a few minutes. That's what will convince me, no more and no less. If you're correct in your argument, then doing so should not be a problem.

And incidently, my argument is about Leg Hold traps, just so we're clear what we're debating.
__________________
"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 03-01-2007, 04:51 PM   #65
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
I've had some first-hand experience with a leghold trap, not one I want to see repeated. Here in the Poconos, I started on down the trail one day with my Springer spaniel. We weren't more than 100 yards from the car when, after investigating something along the side of the trail, the dog started wailing in agony. I raced over and found her front right paw caught in a leghold trap not more than 10 feet off the trail. Some idiot had set it right there, a few hundred feet from the parking area, just off the trail.

There was no way I could release her, so I sprinted back to the car for a crowbar- and I must say, I've never heard an animal yelp and howl in so much pain........By the time I got back and finally released her, probably 5-10 minutes had elapsed, but it was obvious the pain was excruciating. Fortunately, she recovered from the incident without apparent long-term physical harm, but I'm sure that was because I had been right there to release her pretty quickly. I hate to think how much an animal suffers that's caught for hours or days.....
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 05:18 PM   #66
trouthunter
Member
 
trouthunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 788
St regis said "Foothold traps are not inhumane if used properly. Allowing animals to overpopulate and die from disease or starvation is."

I couldnt agree more.Put a ban on trapping and see what happens then, talk about inhumane!
trouthunter is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 06:27 PM   #67
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by trouthunter View Post
I couldnt agree more.Put a ban on trapping and see what happens then, talk about inhumane!
Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?

it's absolutely amazing that the game ever survived here before the advent of hunters and guns.

here's my take on things, Creator, God, whoever you want to call him created all the creatures of the earth, if anyone is Christian, you certainly can't argue with that. he also created a balance in order that all species could survive. I don;t think there is much argument on that.

So, that being the case, it would seem that in God's plan, there is no need for traps or for "culling" of herds to maintain balance. Yet, man, in his arrogance seems to think he has a better plan then God.

Are you really concerned about the fate of weak animals and the control of disease? Then reintroduce the predators that God created to manage the herds and let nature take care of itself. it did a pretty good job until we all started "improving" on it.

I'm not a Christian, but I would think that what I have stated would be the Christian view, especially as it pertains to trust in God and the desire to do His (or Her) will.

Hawk
__________________
"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 03-01-2007, 09:43 PM   #68
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,466
Redhawk wrote: Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?


Redhawk, you may not understand or accept this, but truthfully, it's about respect and admiration for the animals that I pursue. Non-hunters and non-trappers won't get it, but I think most hunters and trappers know exactly what I mean. I believe that all ethical hunters want a clean kill. Furthermore, most informed trappers use the proper equipment and make sets that limit or eliminate suffering. New techniques, equipment, ammo, etc. give us more opportunities to be humane. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but that is our goal. We always try to be humane, so that's why we talk about it.
St.Regis is offline  
Old 03-01-2007, 10:01 PM   #69
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: Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?


Redhawk, you may not understand or accept this, but truthfully, it's about respect and admiration for the animals that I pursue. Non-hunters and non-trappers won't get it, but I think most hunters and trappers know exactly what I mean. I believe that all ethical hunters want a clean kill. Furthermore, most informed trappers use the proper equipment and make sets that limit or eliminate suffering. New techniques, equipment, ammo, etc. give us more opportunities to be humane. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but that is our goal. We always try to be humane, so that's why we talk about it.
I don't speak as a non-hunter and my grandfather and uncle did some trapping. It was necessary for us to eat.
I hunted into my teens and then ended up hunting for a different Kind of prey, one that also hunted me when he knew I was about.

So my opinions are those of an ex-hunter, one who is familiar with the excitement of the chase, and the moment the trigger slowly squeezes.

I also come from a people who respected the creatures they hunted and thanked it's spirit for the sacrifice it made that we might eat. And it's strange that in those days of "primitive" weapons and ammunition, hardly an animal ever suffered because we got close enough and were accurate enough to make a killing shot. It was only when i got into the business of killing men that I used weapons that allowed me to kill from a half mile away.

So I don't think technology makes killing more humane, I think it makes it easier. I also believe that if someone can't get close enough and isn't accurate enough to kill something from 60 feet, he's not going to be more accurate at 1000 feet.

I have never been caught in a physical trap. However, I have at a couple of times, been trapped in another way. I am not ashamed to say that I knew fear. I cannot imagine that it's any different for another creature.

So, I have opinions, based on life experience and you have yours. We are probably never going to agree on this issue, unless you have an epiphany, so lets leave it like that and respect each others right to differ.

Hawk
__________________
"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 03-01-2007, 11:51 PM   #70
Buckethead
Member
 
Buckethead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Olean NY
Posts: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?

it's absolutely amazing that the game ever survived here before the advent of hunters and guns.
It seems that this thread took an interesting turn....

Although I'm not a trapper I do support the thesis that trapping and hunting currently do help support healthy populations of game animals. People have virtually eliminated most large predatory animals from where-ever we live. Without that predator/prey balance there is a significant risk to overpopulation, starvation and die-off of game animals. This is inevitable without natural predators. By man thinning out the population, we provide more habitat for the survivors and less competition for sparse resources.

Unfortunately what we are doing by "managing" game in this way is perpetuating the cycle we created. Oddly enough this same cycle is the reason many "bait and shoot" tactics in rural areas for deer fail miserably.
Buckethead is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:32 AM   #71
St.Regis
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post

So, I have opinions, based on life experience and you have yours. We are probably never going to agree on this issue, unless you have an epiphany, so lets leave it like that and respect each others right to differ.

Hawk
No epiphanies will come regarding this issue. I'm comfortable in my beliefs. Fair enough on respecting each others rights to disagree. We both love the land, so I think that's the most important thing.
St.Regis is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:39 AM   #72
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
But if it's not the primary reason for trapping, and in setting the traps, there is no way the trapper would know if there were any rabies in the area, then how can it be "a valuable side effect of trapping"?

What are the "main effects" of trapping? What trapping requires the use of leg hold traps only, in lieu of another more humane trap or method of removal?
It seems that we will never agree to everything, but if you are interested in reading what the State has to say about trapping I suggest you read "Trapping and Furbears,an Introduction to Responsible Trapping" , a Student Manual published by the Sportsman Education Program,NYSDEC.
This was the manual used when I took the reguired 8 hour trapper training course.If the world were perfect and all trappers followed all the guidelines I am sure alot of your concerns would be met.But you and I know that is not the case.
One point that is always missed is that leghold traps are not killing traps, they are live traps that allow the trapper to
release non- target animals,mostly unharmed, including species out of season and pets.( which some should have been on leashes)
Most furbearers are caught at night, and if the trapper is responsible he /she checks the trap at first light, each day, in order to reduce stress on the catch.
If you see a wild animal in a trap, stay away, you are adding to its' stress.
Also the use of fur is a use of a renewable resource, not the same can be said about polyester fleece.I wonder how many gallons of oil we all wear on our backs, and how many soldiers died defending our right to cheap fuel and disposable H2O bottles!
chairrock is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:47 AM   #73
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post



You'll convince me the leg hold traps are humane when you allow spring one on your ankle and stay in it for a few minutes. That's what will convince me, no more and no less. If you're correct in your argument, then doing so should not be a problem.

.
Redhawk,
Does my clumsiness of setting off a #4longspring on my hand at least one a year count? I admit the hand is already pretty much numb for being in freezing cold water, but if you want to compare...(just kidding about the comparison, not about my the trap, really doesn,t do any permanant harm tho)
chairrock is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 11:10 AM   #74
trouthunter
Member
 
trouthunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?

it's absolutely amazing that the game ever survived here before the advent of hunters and guns.

here's my take on things, Creator, God, whoever you want to call him created all the creatures of the earth, if anyone is Christian, you certainly can't argue with that. he also created a balance in order that all species could survive. I don;t think there is much argument on that.

So, that being the case, it would seem that in God's plan, there is no need for traps or for "culling" of herds to maintain balance. Yet, man, in his arrogance seems to think he has a better plan then God.

Are you really concerned about the fate of weak animals and the control of disease? Then reintroduce the predators that God created to manage the herds and let nature take care of itself. it did a pretty good job until we all started "improving" on it.

I'm not a Christian, but I would think that what I have stated would be the Christian view, especially as it pertains to trust in God and the desire to do His (or Her) will.

Hawk
1.First of all , Im not a trapper, although its on my to do list and several of my family and friends trap.
2.Am I ALWAYS talking about humane? The only reason I mentioned it was because of it being mentioned earlier by other posters.I think I only mentioned it ONCE.
3.Yes I truly am concerned about the fate of weak animals and the control of disease.
trouthunter is offline  
Old 03-02-2007, 11:36 AM   #75
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Thanks

I just want to say something that I think needs to be said, as well as commended. this thread has contained via the original post and some interesting twist and turns, subjects matter that tends to be polarized, with people on the exact opposite sides of the issue, and some with middle ground.

I think it's commendable that everyone was able to debate the issues, without letting it get personal or derisive. In all too many cases it immediately turns into a series of derisive name calling and sometimes threat's.

Instead, we have had strong opinions expressed on both sides and reasons put forth for the belief in those positions.

While I am probably never going to be a trapping advocate, I admit that I have gotten some good arguments here that may soften my opinions, although I will always oppose leg hold traps.

So, I would like to thank all who debated these issues in such a straightforward respectful way and let you know that although we disagree here, there are other issues we are probably on the same page with.

it would certainly be a pleasure to sit down together, either around a campfire (sans traps of course ) and share a cup of coffee and some companionship.

The door to my house is always open and there's always coffee in the house, just check your guns in the car . However I always accept bribes of venison.

Hawk
__________________
"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 03-08-2007, 08:38 PM   #76
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
A few thoughts.

Ok I am new here and had to read this from the beginning.
So here are all my thoughts about what some people had to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stillhunter View Post
Consider signing the following petition to oppose the appointment of Alexander "Pete" Grannis as the next DEC Commissioner.
All the person asked for is for people to consider. Not sure why this thread got this long. It was a simple request.


Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
I am opposed to high powered guns that kill from a half mile away and can go far enough to injure someone. I am also opposed to semi-automatic weapons for hunting. if you can't get close enough to shoot and can't bring it down with a lever or bolt action, they you don't have the skill use the firearm, as far as I'm concerned. And if anyone asks, yes I can get lose enough to an animal and yes I could bring it down with a single shot. I'm no stranger to firearms and was quite proficient with them. I am opposed to trophy hunting. It's like someone has a nice coat or pair of sneakers and I kill them to take them. I am opposed to hunters who advocate the killing of predators or the reintroduction of them to their natural habitat because they compete with hunters for their kill.

I also favor gun legislation and regulation as well as licensing. I don't think that anyone with a legitimate reason for carrying a firearm and without a criminal record will suffer. I also don't believe that there is a plot to take away all the guns from private citizens and that licensing is just the first step.
A long distance shot is an art in itself. And whether its a 1/2 mile, 20 feet or even a 1 foot shot, the shot should not cause injury to anyone, thats just plain being responsible for your actions.

Semi-Auto vs. Lever or Bolt action. Who cares? As the Military snipers say "One shot one kill." So who cares what you use.

Most hunters I know hunt for the meat and the fun of being afield. Trophy hunters are not as wide spread as some think, not really sure what one is. Or am I a trophy hunter because i would love to shoot a Boone and Crocket level buck? Just a note before I get alot of anti hate mail on that, I doubt it would ever happen and I would eat it ones it was scored.

There are enough gun regulations out there. Only need 1. "If you break a law and use a gun its illegal." If i stab someone with a butter knife or shot someone with a gun its murder. So lets leave the guns alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
Based on just this bill, I could understand why hunters/trappers would be opposed to him. They tend to be big fans of slippery slope arguments.
Where do you get that from? Thats such an unfounded generalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
To further explain my point; by allowing the smaller municipalities to legislate restrictions on hunting or in this case trapping, would would allow for a "chipping away" of the freedoms currently exercised by people who hunt and trap. There's a pretty pervasive fear in people who engage in hunting and trapping that any sort of legislation that further restricts their ability to engage in those activities, will eventually lead to the out right banning of them.

I realize I may not have been completely clear in my initial statement, but if you reread it with the clarification above, I think you get my point.

Also, I think it's silly to say he's not against it, because the legislation references 2 counties that tried to restrict trapping(Suffolk and Rockland), and them being overturned by the state on the issue. This legislation would allow those counties to overrule the existing statutes and make what is otherwise legal statewide, illegal.

Why else would he put forward this type of legislation? Last I heard, their has never been a huge outcry for "county's rights" like "state's rights". He's had a number of other pieces of legislation that he's submitted regarding animal cruelty with reference in most cases to animal testing, so their not pertinent to the question adressed above. It's not a huge jump, based soley on this bill, to say he's against trapping.

Additionally I have to say I disagree with the additional layers of bureaucracy that this type of legislation would add. We have a state agency to address the issue, we don't need county government to regulate it as well. Who's the enforcement going to fall to? It's currently with the DEC, so does that mean that the county sheriff's department and indivisual municipalities would be responsible?

I think he's got a great record on many environmental issues, and based on that I think his appointment makes sense. If he is in fact against hunting and trapping, which this bills leads me to believe he is, I disagree with his appointment.
Lets let the Biologists at the DEC make the decisions on hunting, trapping and fishing, not polititions. Let the experts handle it.

[QUOTE=coolrobc;60719]On the issue of guns I could only find one piece of legislation he sponsored, and that was making the improper/unsafe storage of a firearm a criminal offense.QUOTE]

Unsafe? What makes it unsafe? Again back to my "1 gun law" idea.

[QUOTE=redhawk;60898]Number one. Leghold Traps ARE inhumane. Anyone believing otherwise should wear one for a few hours. There are other types of traps.

Allowing counties, the the citizens of the counties to regulate trapping means that the local taxpayers get their say. to regulate does not necessarily mean to ban.

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.QUOTE]

If you keep saying it it will make it so. Is that the theory?
I have had my fingers in a few traps, it was unpleasent, when it snapped but not as bad as it sat there. But then again I have come up on my traps to find a coyote sitting like a dog begging for food, like the trap was not bothering him.
In the time I have spent trapping I have caught alot of young animals and old, and alot in between. Traps are not selective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
This is an interetsing tangent from the original topic.

I don't think that's an unrealistic expectation at all, but this is a state regulated issue, not a county issue. They regulate the deer hunt by WMU's and regions, why not regulate trapping the same way? Seems like that would be a better compromise to me.

From what I can tell there was an attempt ban leg traps in those counties as a result of separate incidents of 2 dogs killed in traps (one body trap, the other a leg trap). In one case the dog was killed on private property (not the dog owners) and the other was either state or county property, I can't remember which.

Both of these incidents were used as rallying points for the county legislation. Neither of these would have happened had the dog owners been obeying the leash laws that I'm fairly certain already exist. I grew up in the middle of nowhere, and we were ticketed once for letting our dog run loose. I would find it hard to believe that Rockland and Suffolk being much more urban/suburban than Northern Saratoga County would not have leash laws, but that's separate issue.

The State struck down the inhumane trap ban as overriding the DEC's authority on the matter. The State's determination was that the counties could ban the traps, but only on county property, not private or state property. This bill was the best they could come up with in return?

Seems like they jumped to the all or nothing side too quickly to me. The counties overstepped they're bounds, so now we're going to add another level of government involvement, on an already regulated issue. Maybe living in Erie county and our recent fiscal crisis is affecting my opinion on this, but we need less county level government, not more.

I'd be interested to know who the enforcement would fall to in a case where someone was using an illegal trap in one of those counties. Wouldn't enforcement of this law be outside of the jurisdiction of the DEC officers? Does this mean the county sheriffs and local police would be responsible for enforcement?

There's already an existing system in place for regulating this, rather than go through the appropriate channels to change things, let's just make a new law.

The whole thing just doesn't seem well reasoned to me.
Personal responsibility. On both the part of the dog owner and the trapper. Some trappers do not use the best of judgement when trapping. But most places have leash laws. And i do beleive the law says any county that is considered a "Rabies County" requires leashed animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtip View Post
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!
Thankyou. Exactly. COuld not have said it better myself.

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
I am an NRA member and I do not support the use of Assault weapons for hunting. Only need 1 shot. Then again what is an assault weapon? That is such a broad term. I woud love to own a fully automatic weapon, for target shooting, but I have no need for one for hunting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by St.Regis View Post
Redhawk wrote: "So then, you would advocating trapping only in those areas where there are outbreaks of rabies?"

Nope. One of many reasons I advocate trapping is to control the populations before there are outbreaks of disease. Also, rabies is only one disease...there is mange, parvo, tularemia, Tyzzer's, roundworm, Lyme, etc.

I disagree with you on the issue of leghold (foothold) traps. These types of traps are an effective tool for taking many species of furbearers. They are much more effective in many situations than other forms of traps (bodygrips, snares, cage traps). Currently in NY, snares are illegal and the largest bobygrip that can be used on land is 7x7". Although many furbearers can be caught in bodygrips and cages, some species like fox and coyote will usually avoid these traps. That leaves the foothold. Properly sized footholds do minimum damage to the target animal. Modifications to foothold traps can be made to further reduce or eliminate injury (e.g. multiple swivels, offset jaws, shock springs, padded jaws, tension adjustable pans). Many stock traps come with one or more of these features. Also, foothold traps used in and around water can be rigged to dispatch an animal quickly.

Foothold traps are not inhumane if used properly. Allowing animals to overpopulate and die from disease or starvation is.
I will agree with that. Most hunters I know tend to agree with me. i would prefer a 30.06 to the head or the sudden snap of a killer trap to starving or dying of a disease like rabies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by poconoron View Post
I've had some first-hand experience with a leghold trap, not one I want to see repeated. Here in the Poconos, I started on down the trail one day with my Springer spaniel. We weren't more than 100 yards from the car when, after investigating something along the side of the trail, the dog started wailing in agony. I raced over and found her front right paw caught in a leghold trap not more than 10 feet off the trail. Some idiot had set it right there, a few hundred feet from the parking area, just off the trail.

There was no way I could release her, so I sprinted back to the car for a crowbar- and I must say, I've never heard an animal yelp and howl in so much pain........By the time I got back and finally released her, probably 5-10 minutes had elapsed, but it was obvious the pain was excruciating. Fortunately, she recovered from the incident without apparent long-term physical harm, but I'm sure that was because I had been right there to release her pretty quickly. I hate to think how much an animal suffers that's caught for hours or days.....
Crowbar on a leghold? Leg holds if you step on the sides they open. They are simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trouthunter View Post
St regis said "Foothold traps are not inhumane if used properly. Allowing animals to overpopulate and die from disease or starvation is."

I couldnt agree more.Put a ban on trapping and see what happens then, talk about inhumane!
Then when diseased animals are in the suburbs and little junior can't go out in the yard to play, they will miss us hunters and trappers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
Why is it that people who hunt and trap are the ones who always talk about "humane"?

it's absolutely amazing that the game ever survived here before the advent of hunters and guns.
Well there is more game here now then there was when the Pilgrims arrived.
So we must be doing something right.


Let me give you a little history lesson:
Back in the early 80's trappers over trapped for fur, flooded the markets. As a Trapper, Yes i agree that was wrong, it was pure greed. SO the market for fur dropped. SO very few of us trapped. And the populations got really high. And then rabies ran up this state killing the over abundance, and some animals that did not have a population problem, of animals like raccoons. There are 2 morals to my history lesson.
1. Responsible usage is the answer.
2. Mother nature is more cruel then any hunter or trapper i know.


I just had to put that in here. It describes my feelings on trying to reason with an anti. Because most i have met won't even listen.

Last edited by Connie Bear Orion; 03-08-2007 at 08:59 PM..
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-08-2007, 09:35 PM   #77
poconoron
Backcountry Wanderer
 
poconoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Pocono Mts, Pa. and Adirondacks
Posts: 841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post

Crowbar on a leghold? Leg holds if you step on the sides they open. They are simple.
That's something I didn't know. Thanks for pointing it out for "next" time.
__________________
Ahh............Wilderness.......
poconoron is offline  
Old 03-08-2007, 09:47 PM   #78
Connie Bear Orion
Member
 
Connie Bear Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Central NY
Posts: 454
Hawk: My point was what difference does the type of action of the gun make? None. If you are only taking 1 shot.
Connie Bear Orion is offline  
Old 03-08-2007, 10:24 PM   #79
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Bear Orion View Post
Hawk: My point was what difference does the type of action of the gun make? None. If you are only taking 1 shot.
That's you, and that's others, and that's me when I was hunting.

But unfortunately, it's not everybody, in fact, today it's too few. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have been in the woods in hunting season or along a road, and heard several shots in rapid succession, and often when coming across the party(s), they don't have a thing.

Maybe I'm a purist, maybe things have changed, God knows most other things have, but..........

I was taught to track, to get close, and then take the shot. Later in life, I as one of those military types you refer to, became a long distance shooter, but that was more for preservation of the team and myself. I didn't really care for it, although i was expert at it. It wasn't fair really, it wasn't sport. I was just killing, from a distance or ambushing. I don't understand why anyone would not want to stalk and close on their target. that's the sport, that's the adrenaline.
It's not like they need the food to survive, in that case I might understand having to have the edge. But for sport? Seems to me the more technical and the more distant it becomes, then the less sport there is. It becomes not hunting but killing.

So, that's my reasoning behind some of my arguments, why I argue against automatic weapons and long range rifles and ammo.

Hawk
__________________
"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 03-09-2007, 04:11 PM   #80
Adirondack_hunter
Southern Adirondack Hunter
 
Adirondack_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Falls
Posts: 296
I'm not going to get into this one full blown because it's not worth it. Most people just talk in circles. Everyone has different beliefs and some are based on "allowing everything to live" Everything can't live.(somewhat expalined below) We are hunters and gatherers still. Some prefer to gather more and some hunt more. That is what has made the human so well off, at least as evolution is concerned.
How do you fight ignorance than but to say, if there wasn't a hunting/trapping season there would be population and disease problems. You honestly can't argue with that unless you have no clue about population dynamics and ecology. PITA would argue this though. Those cards are easily read and aren't going to get responses from me they shouldn't form you other hunters either IMO.
We now in the US have more deer and turkeys than this continent has seen in tens of centuries. Since none of us were around before then we can't speak of before then so our environment has to speak for us. (scientifically speaking) Biblical type stories don't cut it. They are just that. Stories, some true some just bunk!
This brings us to guns and hunting as well as trapping to control those populations that we, man, have helped to create. Yes, we have.
Some areas of the world don't have this problem. Their societies have pushed animals out of land that is suitable so that only the strongest live naturally and the yare very few at that and they live at the upper reaches of what naturally can. Some of those countries don't have guns and don't need them to control any population at all. Guns are needed for the military only.
Look at the history of the whitetail deer and the spread of the population. Some states didn't even have whitetails 200 years ago or even before that. We, by the change that we put on our environment have helped to create habitable land for them. Turkeys have a similar story.
Guns.....personally (rhetorical) does it make a difference what someone uses?
Must they have to stalk to have the right to hunt? Must they not be able to ambush? Is it just that we want to force "our way" upon others. Man is good at that!
The semi-auto centerfire rifle some love. I don't own one yet don't try to push "my" why on anyone. I could care less what you hunt with as long as it works. The "looks" of a gun does not influence my opinion. Should society put a ban on how many shots can be fired and in what succession? Heck, I only take one shot. Can everyone learn to shoot well. I say yes. Yet, I honestly feel that my way is not "everyones" way nor do I want it to be. What a boring society we would have if we all did the same.
Back to rapid stings of shots in the woods that were possibly created with semi-auto rifels and not automatic rifles. The word automatic is so misleading and that gets the ignorant people's panties in an uproar. Let's be correct with our terminology. Have I heard them those rapid strings of shots that is. Sure and I often at times wonder what in gods creation are they thinking. I know those types of strings of shots are dwindling as well. The hunting community is changing on its own. Fewer and fewer people are doing such acts. More and more hunters are thinking safety and are taking less of those types of shots. There is a class of hunters out there that continue to do this and that class is on it's way out. Time will do it for them.
I know of a group of hunters that hunt without scopes near Arietta. In order to be in their group you can not have a scope. You ought to hear the shots in the woods on some weekends. It's thier thing and I am not a fan of it but I am not going to tell them they should not do it. Welcome to the fall and being a hunter/gatherer.
Ever hear of Jacklighting? It was the Adirondack thing to do once upon a time. Is it done now? I bet very rarely though spotlighting from a vehicle is done. Neither is right but a society changes and changes on it's own without the need for radicals and their beliefs. Some changes are good, some are bad.
Some in society want to mandate "blaze orange" I feel that it is unneeded and that it just creates bad precedence. Some feel safer yet it can affect societal rights. Is it worth affecting those rights just to make you "feel good"?
Blaze orange...a new thread for the future and how it affects Adirondack Hunters..some other day.
I could argue that the modern bow is much more effective than bows from years ago but where would that get us? Nowhere!
I'm not going to get into this one full blown because it's not worth it and still haven't.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Adirondack_hunter; 03-09-2007 at 04:32 PM..
Adirondack_hunter 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 02:49 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.