Thursday, June 25, 2009

NY Times opinion on Mexico and guns

The NY Slimes has another inflamatory article this week against American's and our guns. Yes, I know it is hard to imagine a newspaper that thrives on facts would print such horseshit then publish it for the world to read. What some business will do for $timlius and a little attention.


Here is the link to the article I've commented on.
Death and American Guns in Mexico

BPB comments:

If a gun show is unregulated then how do they trace anything back to that show?

Oh yeeaa how stupid of me! Jose told the feds he got it from Juan; who'ssister's brother Jeppe has a cousin on his mothers side that lives with hissister Maria's little bro-Mikie's white girlfriend Alysia who is pregnant withRubin’s little brothers baby who she'll name Jalapyo once they move out ofMaria's mother in laws house in San Luis.

This article is more than a load of CRAP, it borders on slander against privatedealers! Must be nice to have the papers money behind you so you can tell & printanything you want without fear of reprisal.How about we launch a fax-email and phone war against the times lets see howthey like our comments.

Mexico couldn't trace a slug across a concrete pad much less a firearm theypurchased for their crooked police & then sold to a brother in law the following week. List not in Spanish; give us a break will ya! Well hell no it ain't in Spanishit’s an AMERICA LIST! What's next, will Mexico complain this NYTimes opinion is not in Spanish?

Maybe for the Sunday edition this editor can do a spot on:
Mexico, their drugs in America.

BPB

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

DEC pulls support from Antler Restrictions

Antler Restrictions ~bpb
Mr. Charles O. Hancock, Chairman Conservation Fund Advisory Board 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-4751

Dear Mr. Charles O. Hancock


This letter is to inform you of DEC's withdrawal of a recent regulatory proposal to extend antler point restrictions for deer hunting to eight additional Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) in southeastern New York. The proposal was made in response to a request from a coalition of antler restriction advocates, followed by our own survey that suggested a formal public comment period would be useful.


We received many comments in support of and in opposition to the proposal, and it is apparent that most people on either side of this issue have very strongly held opinions.Hunters opposing the change stated that they are mostly interested in "meat, not antlers," and are concerned about decreased harvest opportunity, particularly in light of relatively low Deer Management Permit (antlerless deer tags) availability.


They also expressed frustration with a loss of freedom to select the type of buck they wish to harvest, and contend that antler point restrictions will negatively affect hunter sentiment and participation and associated economic benefits. Hunters also expressed concern that the penalties for mistakenly shooting a deer with too few antler points include a potential misdemeanor criminal charge.


Hunters supporting the antler restriction proposal cited their interest in taking older, larger deer and contended that this program will enhance deer management in New York, including economic and social benefits associated with the "excitement" of seeing and taking older, larger deer. They believe that antler restrictions will help create a "healthier" deer herd.


At the present time, our biologists see no specific management benefit associated with the antler restriction program and do not consider antler restrictions as necessary to improve herd condition. Deer populations throughout New York currently have healthy breeding patterns and adult sex ratios that ensure virtually all does are bred, conditions that indicate our deer herd is in good condition.We believe interest in antler restrictions is primarily an issue of hunter preference, and it is clear that hunters are deeply divided.


There is no biological urgency to implement a mandatory antler restriction in the proposed deer management units, and hunters who wish to adopt an antler restriction policy or practice may already do so on a voluntary basis.
DEC will pursue further dialogue with hunters to promote greater awareness and realistic expectations of the potential outcomes of antler restriction programs.

We are already planning to hold public meetings on deer management this fall, and we intend to include this issue as a discussion point. Deer management and potential changes to hunting laws and regulations are serious matters for DEC. We will continue to monitor the status of deer populations and the interests of stakeholders to recommend or enact changes that are in the best interests of sound game management and the ability of people to use and enjoy this important wildlife resource.


I appreciate your support for big game hunting and our deer management program.


Sincerely, Alexander B. Grannis


IMO
BPB reply; I firmly believe that AR should NOT be forced on the citizens of NY ,especially public hunting lands. AR on private land , your land, hey go for it.
=================

FYI: I recently sat on the DEC Region 8f committee that was comprised of sportsmen,landowners,farmers,homeowners ect...

I represented the non-affiliated groups even though I am heavily affiliated. The Affiliated rep. could not make the meetings so Art Kirsch DEC big game biologist asked if I would also wear the affiliated hat a swell.

In the second meeting many of the reps did not show up! Leaving the table very light. We decided after compiling our surveys the region 8f WMU needed to reduce the deer herd by 25%.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Commercial Lights out

Lights out

Don Sage Accounting questions for Gov. Patterson

From :Donald Sage
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 10:51 PM
Subject: Accounting
21 June 2009

Governor David Paterson
State Capital, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Paterson:

As the legislative year nears conclusion where is the accounting to the sportsmen for our $53.2 Million? NYS sportsmen received $13.2 Million from the Federal Government – where is the breakdown of expenses for these funds? License sales bring in over $40 Million – where is the breakdown and accountability of these funds? What actions have you taken to stop the stealing of our sportsmen funds? What actions have you taken to insure every conservation/ environmental fine, penalty, and settlement goes into our conservation fund and not the general fund? What checks and safe-guards have you put in place to guarantee the entire $14 Million you, Smith and Silver – in your secret budget – are taking from sportsmen is returned to their programs? What actions have you taken to refund the conservation fund for the illegal expenditures by your predecessors? The only personnel eligible to be paid from the conservation fund are the fish hatchery and game farm employees – No One Else. No one else works for the sportsmen and conservation fund! When are you going to eliminate Enck, Grannis and the gang of thieves taking our sportsmen dollars?

Instead of worrying about mental deficient queers, perverts, sexual deviates, etc. what actions have you taken to protect our 2nd Amendment rights? We have all seen the cowardness of Silver and Smith, and their refusal to allow pro- 2nd Amendment representatives a voice. This shows in the idiocy of Silver’s Assembly’s anti-gun legislation now before the Senate. Where is your voice recommending the Senate ignore and reject every Assembly Bill? Where is your statement that you will support the Constitution and Bill of Rights and will veto every anti-gun bill that is passed?

What action have you taken to eliminate all appointed and non-civil service positions in state government? What action have you taken to reduce wasteful spending and to eliminate such worthless agencies as the Adirondack Park Agency? Where are these reductions to aid the taxpayer? What steps have you taken to eliminate taxes based on ownership of property and switch to income based only? What programs have you implemented to reopen illegally closed roads, reclaiming the 3,000 poisoned waters of the Adirondacks, improving access to and more multiple uses (motorized) of existing state lands, and cancelling all land purchases by the state? What programs have you implemented that limit the state to purchase of conservation easements only and keep all land in private ownership?

The Federal Government and other states – all recognize the importance of sportsmen, habitat management, outdoor recreation and the economic benefits they bring. When is NYS going to get on board? Snowmobiles and ATV’s could bring millions of dollars to the economy if state lands supported trails. Reclaiming and restocking waters would bring more anglers and more economic dollars. Habitat improvement, timbering/ forest products, and active recreational management would increase wildlife numbers and species for many varied and versatile groups to enjoy, and bring in money for the state. By simply cleaning your house you could turn NYS’s economy around. Please take this action and eliminate state waste, useless agencies, and appointees.

Sincerely;


Donald Sage
P.O. Box 123
Paradox, NY 12858
518-585-7250

Monday, June 22, 2009

Bills Passed in the Assembly June 18, 2009

Bills passed June 18th

A7509 O'Mara -- Allows hunters in the county of Schuyler to hunt deer by the use of a rifle
A7581A Kolb -- Allows for rifle hunting in Ontario County

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Wayne County SCOPE meeting dates

Wayne county info.

We meet the second Wednesday of every month except July, August, and December. our meeting place is the Marion American Legion ,located on Witherden Rd. in Marion. We meet at 7:pm, have a casual meeting, sometimes with a speaker and always with a light meal. Anyone is welcome.

Dan Gilmore is County Chairman

Here is a link to all our county and state contacts

Wayne County departments

Saturday, June 20, 2009

DEC pulls support for antler restrictions

I had a letter show up today from Commissioner Grannis stating the DEC has withdrawn support from 8 additional WMU's. This was based on numerious comments from both sides of the fence. Science won in this round as the DEC feels "AR poses no signifiant management benefit & AR does not improve heard condition".
Many in opposition were meat hunter and their was a growing threat that a person shooting a non-legal buck would face criminal charges.

BPB

Sunday, June 14, 2009

NYS Trapping bill bad news A04777

Bill,

As the NY Legislative season winds down this week there are a couple of very important bills out here that need our attention in hopes that we can contain them in Committee another year. Please take the time to call, fax or email your concerns to your local Senator & Assembly Representatives about the following bills.

It could be as simple as "my name is --------- and I am a licensed NYS sportsman or trapper. Bill #----- is very dangerous for trappers and I ask that it be removed from the committee agenda or held in committee. Thank you." Thank You for doing you part to keep trapping strong in New York and if you’re not currently a member of the New York State Trappers Association or have a fellow trapper that isn’t, please consider that without support, both financially and in numbers, we will surely fall by the wayside and the anti-trappers will win.

You can view the full bills at the Assembly website http://assembly.state.ny.us/ and the Senate website at http://www.nysenate.gov/ .

Wayne Jones
New York State Trappers Association Vice President
(315) 768-8115

A04777 Summary:
BILL NO A04777
SAME AS Same as S 5423
SPONSOR Englebright (MS)
COSPNSR Rosenthal, Kavanagh, McEneny, Bradley, Colton
MLTSPNSR Latimer, Pheffer
Add S11-1111, En Con L

Provides that each county within the state may limit, restrict or prohibit trapping within its municipal limits; provides that municipalities may do so by local law or ordinance.

S5423 SERRANO Same as A 4777 Englebright (MS)
Environmental Conservation Law
TITLE....Relates to limiting, restricting or prohibiting trapping

A08724 Summary:
BILL NO A08724
SAME AS No same as
SPONSOR Sweeney
COSPNSR
MLTSPNSR

Rpld S3, Chap 387 of 2004; rpld SS27-0702, 19-0315 & 11-1109, amd S11-1101, En
Con L

Relates to the trapping of wildlife; repeals certain provisions of the environmental conservation law relating to the small business stationary source compliance advisory panel and the state task force on flame retardant safety and the solid waste management board.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

NY Senate like a fish on the deck!

NY Politicker news

You gotta read the stories. LMAO

Hi Everyone ...
I just had a call from SCI Rep. Bob Keicher and he informed me that two downstate Senators have switched parties, from Democrat to Republican and the Republicans have again taken over control of the NY State Senate. They are in the process of reorganizing the Senate at this time.
Senator Dale Volker has announced that there will be NO gun bills this year!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!

Bill Hilts Sr.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Buffalo News can't report the news

From one of SCOPE's members:

Gerald,
Thank you for keeping me in the loop:-)

I communicated to the Senator your concerns. Please be assured that if this bill comes to a vote, Senator Stachowski will oppose it.

Unfortunately, an opinion article on today's Buffalo News suggests that the
Senator has not stated his position clearly and implies that he might even support
these anti-gun bills.
Please make sure to let your fellow members at Scope and the entire WNY
sporting community know of the Senator's position.

Thank you and, please, stay in touch.

Best Regards,

Despina Moraitou
Legislative Analyst
Senator Stachowski's office

NY Senator Tom Libous opposes Micro-stamping

Opposition to microstamping
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
You may have received a call tonight from the NRA asking you to call me to oppose S.4397 which would require microstamping on all handguns manufactured or delivered to licensed gun dealer in New York to be capable of microstamping the ammunition.

I will vote No if this bill comes to the Floor of the Senate.

I'm well aware of the negative impact that this would have on gun manufacturers in New York State, like Wesson Firearms in Norwich. I also know that it would have no impact on cutting crime but would just drive up the price of firearms.


Tom Libous



Glock paper on stamping

Friday, June 5, 2009

NY firearms ban in Parks

IMO~
Public gun clubs and ranges to be shut down in New York if a new bill is passed into law.
That’s right folks, a new bill that seems to be on the fast track for the Senate is bill S4753A/A7183A.

“ This bill Prohibits the possession of concealed firearms in any federal, state or municipal park, campground or other publicly dedicated recreation area; imposes a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for a violation thereof. “


So how many public ranges is their in New York; 100,200 maybe more. How many clubs have or are receiving money from the government? You all know how that FREE money deal works don’t ya? Let me explain for all those who missed the recent bailout stories. Uncle Sugar gives you money & the rules to go along with it!

I’m sure we will see the majority of membership only clubs tighten their requirements for open shooting like Skeet, Trap and Sporting Clays. I know as a former President and now a director of one of the most popular ranges in western NY we may be hard pressed and at full range utilization to accept all the fall out from the public ranges.

Campgrounds will take a big hit for sure I know for that will do in the NYS Muzzle Loaders fall Ronny which is held at the Moose River Plains camp ground area just outside Inlet, NY. What about all those campgrounds that host shooting competitors from around the country? Oddly enough some of our state leadership wants to ban firearms in Federal lands. DUH, the Feds just opened up concealed carry on federal land. So my question is; will the state loose federal dollars if they decide to pass a local law banning firearms on federal land guess we’ll have to wait and see?
No more National Muzzle Loader annual Ronny’s on state land, tens of thousands of dollars will be lost to the local economies if this happens.

I could continue on but you all get the grim dark picture I’m sure. I don't care if the state says we will be excluded because you konow we will be fighting with some town or park over hunting regulations.

I can not stress enough for sportsmen to get involved. WWW.SCOPEny.ORG has several position papers on present legislation and you people better get informed and make your calls. You can visit me at blogspot.blackpowderbill.com for this comment and other news that affects NY sportsmen.

Make calls to your senator and assembly person on this one and while you are on the phone with your senator ask them to oppose the renewable pistol license bill S1598A. Call Senator Schneiderman the senate sponsor also at 518-455-2041

Hey! See ya on the firing line!
Regards,
BlackPowderBill


===================================
A07183 Summary:
BILL NO A07183B

SAME AS Same as S 4753-A

SPONSOR Englebright (MS)

COSPNSR Schimel, Paulin, Jaffee, Eddington, Espaillat, O'Donnell, Hooper,
Rivera N

MLTSPNSR Glick, Markey, McEneny

Add S13.31, Pks & Rec L

Prohibits the possession of concealed firearms in any park, campground or other
recreation area; imposes a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for a
violation thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A07183 Actions:
BILL NO A07183B

03/25/2009 referred to tourism, arts and sports development
04/22/2009 amend and recommit to tourism, arts and sports development
04/22/2009 print number 7183a
05/20/2009 amend and recommit to tourism, arts and sports development
05/20/2009 print number 7183b
05/27/2009 reported referred to codes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A07183 Votes:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A07183 Memo:
BILL NUMBER:A7183B

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the parks, recreation and historic
preservation law, in relation to prohibiting the possession of
concealed firearms in parks, campgrounds and other public recreation
areas

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF THE BILL: to prohibit the possession of
concealed firearms in any park, campground or other recreation area

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: the parks, recreation and historical
preservation law is amended by adding a new section 13.31which will
enact the prohibition of concealed firearms in parks, campgrounds and
other public recreation areas. Except as provided in this section and
otherwise specifically permitted in law, no person, other than a
member of a federal, state or municipal law enforcement agency, shall
introduce or possess, either upon his or her person or within a
vehicle or other place of storage, any concealed firearm in any
federal, state or municipal park, campground or other publicly
dedicated recreation area.

The prohibition in subdivision one of this section shall not apply: to
any campground under jurisdiction of the department of environmental
conservation only during the spring and fall hunting seasons; to
office of parks, recreation and historic preservation lands where
hunting is permitted by a rule or regulation of a regional park,
recreation and historic preservation commission; to privately owned
residences within parks and campgrounds in the Adirondack park and
Catskill park as defined by section 9-0101 of the Environmental
Conservation Law; and to any person employed by a private security
firm which has contracted with the public agency having jurisdiction
over the park, campground or public recreation area for services on
the property under the jurisdiction, custody and control of such
public agency who shall be permitted, with the approval of such public
agency, to carry or possess a concealed firearm supplied by his/her
employer in the course of his/her employment on such property,
provided that such person is licensed pursuant to section 400.00 of
the penal law and meets such minimum qualifications as may be
established by such public agency. In addition, any firm providing
security services on park land, campgrounds or other publicly
dedicated recreation area lands shall provide public liability
insurance, naming the appropriate federal government, state or
municipal agency as an insured party, in such amounts as the public
agency with jurisdiction shall require.

A violation of the provisions of this section shall be subject to a
civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars.

JUSTIFICATION: a Federal Regulation (36 CFR Part 2 and 50 CFR Part 27)
enacted in December, 2008 allows for the carrying of concealed weapons
in National Parks and National Wildlife Areas by those licensed to
carry such weapons by State law. This new federal regulation, along
with a recent amendment to the Federal Credit Cardholders Bill of
Rights Act of 2009 (H.R. 627), create confusing, burdensome, and
unnecessary inconsistencies regarding firearm regulations as it
conflicts with current State Park and DEC rules prohibiting the
carrying of concealed firearms. In the interest of public safety and


the protection of natural resources, as well as consistency of statute
among State, Federal and Municipal parklands, it is necessary to
prohibit the possession of concealed firearms in any park, campground
or other public recreation area within the State.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New bill.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect immediately.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Bill Number:S4397 Microstamping

Bill Number:S4397



These are the 5 most important calls you will make this month.
Please call each senator below and ask them to vote against the Microstamping bill

Senator Antoine M. Thompson (518) 455-3371

Senator William T. Stachowski (518) 455-2426

Senator Darrel J. Aubertine (518) 455-2761

Senator David J. Valesky (518) 455-2838

Senator Dean G. Skelos (518) 455-3171

Fox Production Banned in Denmark

From my friend in the fur industry~ blackpowderbill.blogspot.com

Fox Production Banned in Denmark
On Friday 29th May the Danish Parliament passed a law to ban the farming of foxes, on “ethical” grounds, despite the strong arguments put up by the Danish Fur Breeders Association over many years. Please see a statement issued by Kopenhagen Fur attached. The farming of foxes will be phased out over 15 years for farmers who farm foxes as their main activity, and within 7 years for those who also farm other species. The Danish Parliament did not vote for financial compensation. Danish Fur Breeders Association will now mount a legal challenge to the ban.
The Danish parliament questions people's right to keep animals.

After a few decades of debate on fox breeding in Denmark, it now appears that a majority in parliament will allow fox breeders to continue the current production until 2023. This is the status after parliament’s decision of a bill on banning fox breeding. Taking into account the level of the politicians' handling of the fox question, Danish Fur Breeders Association describes this result as fantastic - in the original sense of the word. The past year or so politicians have assessed three alternatives: 1) An immediate prohibition with compensation for expropriation to farmers, 2) A phase-out in 15 years and 3) A revised recommendation on fur farming based on facts. Danish Fur Breeders Association has obviously worked actively for model 3, where we have submitted specific proposals and drawn attention to the professional knowledge and research that exist in this area. The association has repeatedly suggested that experts should be allowed to make a specific proposal for future legislation. All statements and answers to parliamentary questions from the Food Committee (see http://www.ft.dk/, documents re. L80) point unequivocally to the fact that it is possible to define housing systems and management routines for farmed foxes that ensure that the welfare of farmed foxes is just as good as the welfare of other farmed animals.
However, it has long been clear that a parliamentary majority did not wish to take account of the factual arguments and knowledge, but would rather build on a strong Disney-dominated view of what animals need. But then it probably also applies to chickens, pigs and canaries? Must human relations to these animals also be phased out?
With a ban on fox breeding the politicians adopt the winding-up of a business, but at the same time recognize - with the law coming into force 15 years from now – that the very same business cannot be closed down for factual arguments on animal welfare, because in this case the production would have to be closed down with immediate effect.
Populism and lack of consistency in the logic of so-called animal friends’ and politicians' handling of animal welfare and ethics are striking. This is disclosed in a much discussed report on eating cat (featured in the magazine of the school of journalism in 2008), and COOP's magazine, Samvirke (juni/2008), which featured a whole theme with examples that legislators’ in misunderstood goodness -- and attempts to appeal to voters - have come out wrong. Similarly, the President of the Animal Ethics Council, Professor Peter Sand√łe has been quoted for warning against “treating everything like Bambi” in the daily newspaper, Politiken.
After the decision in parliament the trade will take the matter to court since the parliament’s infringement is unjustified, disproportionate and, moreover, in flagrant breach of EU rules. Therefore, the affected farmers must live with uncertainty for several more years to come.
It is a serious problem for the entire population if parliament makes laws based on emotions and narrow vegan ethics - rather than on the ethical basis which 99% of the population acknowledges, namely that people may use animals and products derived from animals. If this principle is now waived what is the next? Phasing out animals or products such as eggs, silk, chops, hamsters, leather, yogurt, insulin or cage birds? With such politics parliament will be at odds with a fundamental point of view of virtually the entire population.