Friday, December 30, 2011

The MF Global Collapse Explained (And Why It Is a Crime)

By: Fred N. Sauer



As a test of your thinking, how would you like to invest in this, as described in Wikipedia?
...2005 saw Man Financial make its largest deal with the transformative $323 million acquisition of client assets and accounts from entities of Refco, following the U.S. financial-services group's collapse in late 2005. The Refco deal...boosted Man Financial's scale in retail and institutional business.
In June 2007, Man Financial was spun off from Man Group as a separate, public entity, via an IPO, and renamed MF Global. 
Read more: Long read~

MF Global history from NLPC.org

The hearty ingredients of Canis soup

The hearty ingredients of Canis soup


Frank DuBoisat New Mexico Federal Lands Council- 1 day ago

The wolf is iconic and charismatic. We see him on t-shirts, on posters, and in fantasy novels. Conservationists do battle with ranchers to preserve populations of wolves. The coyote, on the other hand, is neither iconic nor loved. A newcomer to suburbia, he is feared as a suspected predator of cats, small dogs, and even small children. He is rarely seen on t-shirts; his name is not used to designate a rank of Boy Scout.
But now that we have the genetic tools to look at these animals’ genomes,
it turns out that many of the populations of coyotes in North America are
actually coyote-w...more »
NEW MEXICO FEDERAL LANDS COUNCIL http://nmflc.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here 2002 Ben Bernankee


Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke
Before the National Economists Club, Washington, D.C.
November 21, 2002
Deflation: Making Sure "It" Doesn't Happen Here


Ben Bernanke speech 2002

However, a deflationary recession may differ in one respect from "normal" recessions in which the inflation rate is at least modestly positive: Deflation of sufficient magnitude may result in the nominal interest rate declining to zero or very close to zero.2 Once the nominal interest rate is at zero, no further downward adjustment in the rate can occur, since lenders generally will not accept a negative nominal interest rate when it is possible instead to hold cash. At this point, the nominal interest rate is said to have hit the "zero bound."


Deflation great enough to bring the nominal interest rate close to zero poses special problems for the economy and for policy. First, when the nominal interest rate has been reduced to zero, the real interest rate paid by borrowers equals the expected rate of deflation, however large that may be.To take what might seem like an extreme example (though in fact it occurred in the United States in the early 1930s), suppose that deflation is proceeding at a clip of 10 percent per year. Then someone who borrows for a year at a nominal interest rate of zero actually faces a 10 percent real cost of funds, as the loan must be repaid in dollars whose purchasing power is 10 percent greater than that of the dollars borrowed originally. In a period of sufficiently severe deflation, the real cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Capital investment, purchases of new homes, and other types of spending decline accordingly, worsening the economic downturn.

Hit the link above to read the entire speech~

Monday, December 26, 2011

OMG another voice a former Ron Paul staffer speaks out.

WHEW , had me worried for a second thought it was a comming out article. LOL

Lets thank the paper for letting the former staffer state that Ron Paul is not a racist. Here is the entire article in one paragraph~


Quote:
Dondero goes out of his way to say that Paul is not anti-Semitic or a racist. He said Paul has hired many black and Hispanic employees and “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once.” In fact, Paul’s current campaign spokesman, Gary Howard, is black.###

I thought we'd see a quote from RP that even Israel has stated they want to stand on their own.


Even Ollie North , Regan's former gun/drug runner stated they will have to stad on their own as long as OB1 is in office.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201105120039


OMG Rush even says OB1 is not a friend to Israel. We all now if Rush says it it's got to be the real deal!!! LOL
Quote:
Limbaugh: Obama has surrounded himself with "Jew-haters," "anti-Semites," Israel-haters###
Lets look at it this way, if the United States attacks Iran in another non-approved congressional attack. Then Iran will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
www.blackpowderbill.com

If you have a few minutes you'd like to waste here is the entire article.
ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy

Monday, December 19, 2011

AA hulls once fired .07c each

  I purchased some reloading equipment and it came with a large box of 12 ga AA hulls. It is labled contains 1,000. It has been opened but I do not know how many are missing if any are.

I'm selling them for .07c each.

I'm in the Ontario ny area just south of Rt 104.
I can ship if you want 100-200 ect.

Send me an email at blackpowderbill@yahoo.com if you'd like to stop by and pick some or all of them up if you're in the area.
I also have access to more once fired hulls on a seasonal basis. (I saw about 20,000 stacked up last week.)

Saturday, December 17, 2011

NYC sting shows Internet is used to sell illegal guns - NYPOST.com

NYC sting shows Internet is used to sell illegal guns - NYPOST.com

Another sting CraigsList worst offender ays Bloomie! WAIT hold on, I thought firearms sales on Craigslist weren't allowed????

Describing it as a “24/7 field day for felons,” city officials reported yesterday that the Internet has become a prime source for illegal gun sales — and they provided videos from a sting operation to back up the claim. Mayor Bloomberg singled out Craigslist as the worst offender of 10 sites examined, with 14 of 17 gun sellers failing integrity tests.

“So Craigslist really needs to clean up its act,” the mayor said at City Hall, just two days after the killing of Officer Peter Figoski.Undercover operatives hired by the city contacted 125 private gun sellers in 14 states. Officials said 77, or 62 percent, agreed to make a sale even after being told the buyer couldn’t pass a federally mandated background check. see more videos One Ohio dealer shrugged off the requirement.

“I don’t know all the letters of the law, but I’m pretty sure if somebody said, ‘I can’t pass a background check,’ you’re not supposed to give it to them. But it’s OK. I would,” the seller said in a video played at City Hall. Asked if the sting exceeded the city’s authority and spent $290,000 inappropriately, the mayor responded: “Peter Figoski was our police officer. We didn’t overstep anything. If I had to spend double that money to save one police officer’s life, I would do it instantly.”Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/city_targets_wild_west_web_gun_sales_oTaPAgRVPwdGhqrCIT9fOL#ixzz1gqgVv83P

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

BBP was correct, crap floats and realtors prove it.

I stood in a Walworth town hall meeting 15+- year ago and told those present the present real estate market is being increase 6% per year. I then said, this is a a false figure. The zoning and tax collector along with one realtor on the board said is wasn't.

Bailout Payback? Realtors Double-Count Home Sales For Five Years

(CNBC) Data on sales of previously owned U.S. homes from 2007 through October this year will be revised down next week because of double counting, indicating a much weaker housing market than previously thought.

bailout-payback-realtors-double-counted-home-sales-for-last-five-years

In 2011, Forbes’ 23rd ‘Most Powerful Woman In The World’, HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius was caught double-counting in the ObamaCare budget. Since then, the scandal has been ‘forgotten‘ – deep sixed.


Long shot, I know… but it’s as if Kathleen Sebelius, Goldman Sachs, GE, GM, Solyndra, Verizon, Toyota, National Association of Realtors and so many others knew all along there would be zero penalty for cooking the books.

Try double-counting your tax write-off’s

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Fill er up at BP folks. A lesson in Eastern history.

Today's lesson in history.
This is a must read.
First we stage a coup in Iran because of communisim so the British told the Eisenhower administration. Truman threw the Brits out of his office because, America doesn't stage the over throw of another government. 
Wait ~hold on~commies = British oil that's it, the oil. Kermit Roosevelt was the CIA planner. WOW here's a kid who couldn't fill his GrandDad's left shoe. Fast forward to 2011 & we find them Iranians have nukes. No their commies~Wait the oil.
After the big win, no commies were found. Kind-a like weapons of mass distruction ain't it?
Hum, her's another familiar name,US General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. NOOOOOOO WAY! DAD is that you? AND his job was? Helping the new Shaw create the secret police the Savak.
Ya know keeping the commies out and all that. 
The Shaw held his country in a not so nice fashion untill the Islamic revolution of 1979. So the line to hatred against the United States was started by? The British , they lacked the balls to do it on their own.
All these problems we face today draw a line right back to the UK. Fill er up at BP folks~today!
Cause when the SHTF in Iran you can count on walking. The last 2 fuel shortages were BS hoaxes, this one will be real.

Friday, December 9, 2011

SCOPE NY AG dog & pony show




  SCOPE has committed to an initial grant of $1000 from our legal defense fund. Despite what the news reports are saying, none of those arrested where dealers, none of them paid for tables. All where walk-ins to the shows. The promoters who are being targeted by the attorney general's office obeyed all applicable laws. They had all required signage notifying attendees of the shows that any transaction required a NICS check. In every case thepromoters provided a station to get your NICS check done, with prominent signage.
SCOPE does not support those who knowingly break the law, as seems to be the case from all the reports I've seen. We do not object to the law being enforced in a uniform objective manor, however it is clear that the attorney general's office is less interested in the prosecution of these individuals then they are in using this as a political stunt to

1.Advocate for greater restrictions on the law abiding gun owners and sportsmen, and
this is even more insidious,

2.To force legitimate businessmen out of the gun show business and close down all gun shows in the state.
Our support for NFC Shows is not only because they are SCOPE members with a history of supporting SCOPE and gun rights in NY, but more importantly, because if we allow them to shut them down and run them out of business then we allow them to restrict access for everyone, and push their anti-rights agenda. The next step would be to ban all private transfers. This must be stopped now, or the restrictions will continue, until we have no rights left at all.

Please request support for the SCOPE legal defense fund. We will need a lot more assets to continue to fight this across the state and into next year.

President
Stephen J Aldstadt
(716) 846-5448

SCOPENY is a non profit 100% Volunteer "Civil Rights Organization", looking out for Gun Owners Rights in New York State.

Please join or renew the $20 annual membership fee today.

For about the cost of a box of ammo you can help SCOPE help you.

Join or Renew Today!
http://scopeny.org/join-scope.html

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

BATFE Leadership inept!

Quote:
David Voth, a supervisor over Fast and Furious, warned complainers in an e-mail that they might wind up working as jail guards if they continued raising a fuss. He urged them to relish being part of a major case, writing, "If you don't think this is fun, you're in the wrong line of work -- period!"

The article makes me so sick I had to read it in several sessions. It's damn disgusting that today not one ATF or state department head has been removed and jailed. This shit of public employees at that level being able to walk away from an activity that would put me in jail for decades is bullshit.

BPB

Monday, December 5, 2011

Newt Gingrich is ANTI 2nd Amendment

http://www.congress.org/soapbox/alert/57840506

Newt Gingrich is ANTI 2nd AmendmentPlease Read


This is from gunowners.org
If you wish to look it up go to your search engine

Enter in the search box Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record


http://gunowners.org/newtgingrich-2012.htm

IT READS:

Title: Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record

Written: Tuesday, 22 November 2011 08:18

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]


The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home -- and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.


While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress -- despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]


Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .


[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996. The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking: “I'm very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC's “Meet the Press.” “I think that's a very reasonable position.” But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like: shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).


H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .
S. 735, April 18, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

I wish in fairness to let you Republican Voters know Newt Gingrich record on your 2nd Amendment rights and to call your Senators at 2022243121 and ask them NICELY if Newt Becomes President would they support his record on your right to bear arms.


Sunday, December 4, 2011

NY Gun Show bust Attorney General's press not all true

  Jim Buck and Bruce Johnson of NFC shows, both SCOPE members, have been subpoenaed by Schneiderman's office and are under investigation. None of the people arrested and charged were licensed dealers, contrary to what was printed in the Buffalo News. None of them rented tables for the show. And none of them are SCOPE members. This is a blatant attempt to put NFC Shows out of business and shut down gun shows in New York. We have met with Jim and Bruce and gave them several names or attorneys.

SCOPE BOD has also voted to assist with legal cost.

Please visit our web site and help by donating any amount you can.
Thanks BlackPowderBill
SCOPE Director

Monday, November 21, 2011

Ron Paul and the medias age hang-up & black-out!!

Why is everyone is so fixated on congressman's Paul's age?
I was speaking with a friend today and he asked me who I'd vote for. I replied without hesitation Ron Paul. Who else would I vote for ? Mittens or Handy Herman the Federal reserve chairman?
People are worried about the borders yet they forget it was thier boy Klinton that signed NAFA and was elected to office with large union support. 6 months later the three,3 big union Presidents cried foul.
I told my friend that I plan on changing parties from Conservative to Republican so I can vote for Congressman Ron Paul in the primaries. I don't have a lot of confidence in either party. Paul is the only one who has a plan. He is the only one that can debate off the top of his head while the others can stay on topic.

Ronald Reagan was almost 70 years old when he was elected to his first term as President. He was born Feb 6 1911, and sworn in as President on Jan 20, 1981
Mittens is 65 Once Gov of Mass., need I say more to firearms owners!!
Handy Herman is 67  Federal reserve chairman in Kansas another wall street puppet.
Dick Perry is the kid @ 61 was a Demonrat then flipped to Republican so he's a true RINO
Hillary Clinton is 65  Yea sure, lets start a war.
Newt Gingrich 68  Had his chance to change things.

So stop worring about the borders not being funded. Stop worring about weed being legalised
Those you hear complaining about his military stance can't be real veterans, if they are at all. No military person wants to go to war for people who start them. The gays took over the military decades ago. The baby molesters are in your church,scouts,schools & government.
 It's all bullshit people to distract you from the real world facts.

 They stole your retirement,wages,jobs,401k's,food,firearms and freedom And you tell me you want to vote for the same ol shit again?

Goverment drug and gun runners.
Wake up!

Stop supporting them!

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Chronic failures of the Nassau County crime lab!

Inspector general finds systemic failures in Nassau Crime Lab procedures, management and oversight



ALBANY - New York State Inspector General Ellen Biben Thursday released an investigative report that found systemic problems at the Nassau County Police Department’s Forensic Evidence Bureau went largely undetected, ignored, or were not properly addressed due to failures at all levels of the lab’s management and oversight – from the laboratory itself, up through the Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County leadership, and ultimately the agency charged with forensic laboratory oversight in New York State, the Commission on Forensic Science.

The Inspector General’s investigation – conducted as per Governor Andrew Cuomo’s February 25, 2011 Executive Order which directed the Inspector General to investigate the oversight and operation of the crime lab – found these compound failures enabled a substandard lab to operate for far too long.

The report found that since its creation in 2003, the lab suffered from weak leadership, a dysfunctional quality management system, analysts with inconsistent training and qualifications, and outdated and incomplete testing equipment and procedures. As a result, in a four-year period, the lab was twice placed on probation by a private accrediting agency, a sanction unprecedented among forensic laboratories in New York State.

“The chronic failures of the Nassau County crime lab deprived Nassau County, the criminal justice system, and the public of their right to have complete and unfettered confidence in forensic testing,” said Biben. “We have recommended an expanded review of the lab’s results – along with other recommendations - to restore that confidence.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let the lawsuits begin~ bpb

Monday, November 14, 2011

Stop Accepting Nonsense Ally Bank Commercial Remix (Project 12, 1112)

Greald Celente just had a large portion of his funds seized by court order, when MF went under!
In short Greald was screwed. Like he's been stating for years, all they
have to do is close the doors and take your money. I urge all people to
stop investing in 401k's. You'd be better off putting your money under the
bed. Stop buying newspapers and drop your cable TV. What's more important,
football or you next meal?

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Christopher Edes Candidate Meet & Greet Oct 2011

Chris Edes SCOPEny.org Monroe county chairman

Muzzle~Loader's 4 Sale T/C,CVA,Mills (London)



Sorry for the video quality. I'm destine to crappy cameras. For sale are 4 muzzle-loaders.
Mills Fowler circa 1840 12 ga
$1,000.00
Thompson Center 45 Hawken
$350.00
CVA SxS 12 ga. locks re-worked
$350.00
CVA 32 cal
$325.00

All these Ml'ers are in great condition. I've shot them all but the .32.
You can find me on GunBroker.com as BPBRS
on the internet as www.BlackPowderBill.com

Harpers monthly magazine.ASF

Looking for a unique Christmas gift? Pick one of these up for something truely different.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

SCOPE helps pay the way again!

Ken & Stephen,


First, I want the extend a huge "Thank You!!" to you both, to the BoD of S.C.O.P.E., and to the membership, for their support and backing of this lawsuit, from the start. This little case, budded by me as, "The little case that could...," has turned into a major precedent, for Penal Code 400, in New York State.

 The case, Chwick v. Mulvey, 81 A.D.3d 161, 915 N.Y.S.2d 578 (2nd Dept. 2010), started, as you know, as a pro se case in N.Y. Supreme Court, with Tom Fess, Edward Botsch and myself as petitioners. At the trial level, we were denied our claims. Needless to say, as this court's ruling can be read at http://www.incnf.org/Art78/Doc04-JudgeDavisRuling.pdf, Judge Davis, and his staff, came to very wrong conclusion about New York State preemption.
The lawsuit was then appealed to the New York State Appellate Division, Second Department, and with the excellent skills of Mr. Robert Firriolo, Esq., of Duane Morris LLC, his oral argument won on the appeal. Go to http://www.incnf.org/2ndDeptOA/ChwickvMulvey.mp4 to hear the oral argument from 04/09/2011. The appellate court, viewing this from a state point of view, ruled, in our favor, with a 4-0, 12-page ruling (no dissents). Read the appellate court ruling at http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2010/2010_09911.htm.

 Now, normally, a ruling has downward jurisdiction, meaning that the trial courts served by the Second Department are bound by the ruling. But, as Mr. Firriolo found, there is case law that makes our precedent a statewide jurisdiction.

You see, New York State Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience, not for judicial separation (see Waldo v Schmidt, 200 NY 199, 202). And, as long as there are no other contrary decisions from another Department, and there are none at this time, under the legal doctrine of stare decisis, all the trail courts, under the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, are required to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the New York Court of Appeals or the Appellate Division pronounces a contrary rule (see, e.g., Kirby v Rouselle Corp., 108 Misc 2d 291, 296; Matter of Bonesteel, 38 Misc 2d 219, 222, 16 AD2d 324; 1 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 2:63, p 75).

This is a general principle of appellate procedure (see, e.g., Auto Equity Sales v Superior Ct. of Santa Clara County, 57 Cal 2d 450, 455; Chapman v Pinellas County, 423 So 2d 578, 580 [Fla App]; People v Foote, 104 Ill App 3d 581), and it is necessary to maintain uniformity and consistency (see Lee v Consolidated Edison Co., 98 Misc 2d 304, 306). Consequently, any cases holding to the contrary (see, e.g., People v Waterman, 122 Misc 2d 489, 495, n 2) are disapproved.

So, this "Little case the could...," becomes the the "Little case that does...," as its precedent is binding across the whole state. As to how this becomes valuable, that is is the hands of fine lawyers who need a strong case in a preemption suit.

Again, I thank all of S.C.O.P.E. for their continued support.

Sincerely,
Alan Chwick

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Savage Mdl ll 308 used in great condition

Burqa wearing gun owners


Posted by Woodenblog on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:11:41 PM
Burqa wearing gun owners

There was a time in America where it was a privilege, an honor, and the law that one must, to be able to rightfully carry your weapon of choice out in the open, or concealed, however one wished, and without government interference, without the need for permits, submission to authority for licenses, etc. At one time our Second Amendment covered every citizen, and government protected the rights of the individual. That time has long passed. Since the Progressive movement, and even prior. States, like Tennessee, tried to outlaw the carry of firearms in the 1830's, but state courts rejected the law, and overturned it, based on Second Amendment criteria (“...shall not be infringed”). Even Justice Story, on his treatise on the Constitution, was noted to have written that should any attempt be made against the amendment it would be at the state level, but that if such an attempt were made, that the “Second Amendment” would prevent its being constitutional.

Once relegated (in vogue in western territories before they became states) to the outlaw west, the authority to do this was never considered correct within the United States proper. That is, until the period of Prohibition when running booze became a full time, gangster style job. Prior to that names like Dillinger, and 'Baby Face” Nelson, the James Boys, Ma Barker & her boys, and other bank robbers ran around taking money which the Federal Treasury properly considered within their purview. The Tax man, and revenuers, too became legendary in song, and movie.

In the early 1900's, Timothy Sullivan and the gang at Tammany Hall, the corruption involved, the desire to attain, and hold power, the state of NY determined that due to the rise of murders in NY City that a law needed to be on the books to stop the criminal activity, much of it sponsored by the criminal gangs, many of those run by Tammany Hall itself. Tim Sullivan was a man of ill repute, noted in the Movie “Gangs of New York.” The extent of the corruption was widespread, and the organization was under constant scrutiny, and investigation. The fact is, Tammany Hall was a corrupt political organization as many came to learn, and as many within the system knew at the time. The problem was the power the organization wielded, a power they were reluctant to relinquish to the people, especially the many of “we, the people” being 'undesirables', many illegal aliens, many legal aliens, but thought unequal to those Americans already here who had for generation eked an existence out of the woods, and cities of the new world.

As many states came to realize that their political power could be gained at the behest of the masses by staunching the corruption, and illegality, by keeping the people, in other words, “safe” from the criminal element they found these masses more willing to submit to laws which would stifle their rights. As the educational system devolved to our current 'socialist' public education system, as the criteria to be taught was changed, as the educational processes assumed that propaganda would be better than actual teaching of history, the constitution, the beginnings of our country, and why these then created a capitalist system with a rule of law, all law answering to the constitutionality by the court(s). Whatever happened to these concepts? The people were mis-educated, fed a line of BS for so long that today we don't question our masters, but instead simply kowtow to them. When did the change occur that presumed in a whole people's mind that government was the be all and end all, whereas individual thought, innovation, creativity, responsibility, and individual rights could be trampled upon for the new ideology of the 'common good', the new math, the new world order? How did 'the common good' devolve from “limited government” into 'all encompassing' government?

History relates that it started after the Civil War (War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression, depending on where you live and your ideology). I tend to believe that the states could not only decide to join the union, but given the Declaration of Independence's assumption that one could decide to throw off any government, and design one to fit the needs of the people whom it represented; that secession was legal, justified, and constitutional.

During this after war period, the states often passed laws (Jim Crow) to prevent former slaves from owning, or bearing arms. This, of course, depended on these who were prohibited abiding by the law. As we know, some did not, and those who did often ended up at the end of a noose, put there by white sheeted, and hooded, thugs of the KKK. In essence, the war for liberation (meaning constitutional rights applied to all equally)of the black populace lasted much longer than the Civil War did, by decades. In the 1950's, and 1960's, the Civil Rights movement took off. Prior to this Amendment's 13, 14, and 15, were adopted to try to bring all states into compliance with equality under the law; in essence, true equal justice. However, nowhere was justice ever admittedly equal. Equality can only come from “rule of law,” and adherence to the principle(s) of the law, the primary law in our country being the constitution.

In 1934, FDR passed the first Federal Firearms Act. It disparaged the ownership of the first “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” fully automatic rifles (military assault rifles), and sawed off shotguns, and rifles. Alo0ng with these, the ownership of silencers was also prohibited. That the law was wholly unjustified given that weapons of this type were seldom used, or owned, by the general population, given that the majority of these weapons used were by notorious gangsters, and thugs, the non-necessity of the law couldn't be any more apparent. That one could own these if they applied to the FBI for a permit to do such, that said permit was, in essence, unconstitutional (see the meaning of 'infringed'; 'encroach,' and 'hinder,' among other definitions of infringe).


The Miller decision stated that American citizens could only own those weapons pertinent to militia/military use, but our military had used both shotguns, and full automatic weapons in WWI, which ended a full 16 years before passage of the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. The supposition was that such prohibitive laws would make it so costly to own these weapons that only outlaws would own them. At the time, a permit to own such was $200. During the Depression, when most worked for $1 a day, or less, this was cost prohibitive to the general person. This didn't include the cost of attaining the weapon, keeping it in good working order, or supplying it with ammunition. A cheaper alternative ewas the sawed off rifle, capable of being carried discretely (concealed) where ownership of pistols was now under “permit” systems.

Let me first off note here that in the Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham decision (1969), the courts declared that permits for rights were unconstitutional. They quoted the SCOTUS decision of Staub v. Baxley, which decried permits for sales within various districts. There was also a decision about permits being needed to solicit for churches proselytizing door to door. In Shuttlesworth, quoting from Staub, the justices noted that permits for rights were “unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints” on the individual. As such, anyone faced with such a licensing law “may ignore it, and engage with impunity in the (right) for which the law required a license (permit).” One of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, during the Heller decision, asked complainant Heller if he would be acceptable of a permit system in D.C. I had written seven of the 9 justices, RB-G excluded, asking that when they considered the Heller decision that they also announce that not only was “the right to keep and bear arms” and individual right, but also that it was not to be infringed, as the amendment notes. I sent them the information on the Shuttlesworth decision, and asked that the two justices not written to be filled in by the other seven. As we can see, these justices, all 9 of them, didn't follow past precedent in this case, and instead opted for a watered down version of the Second Amendment more consistent with current ideology, and inconsistent with our Constitution's plain language; “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” With what part of this didn't the dissenters concur? Were they using their perceived agenda to create a constitutional crisis? Why did a recent decision in regards the Permit system be turned away by the SCOTUS? We can only surmise that they have done so in an effort to put off the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. To what end? Do all those in power believe that our constitution needs revision, and if so, why are they unwilling to do it by the process inclusive to it; amendment? Worse, since even the left today considers “past precedent” so vital in being maintained, given the erroneous decision in Roe v Wade, why would they skip over Staub/Shuttlesworth? After all, it is a “Civil Rights” decision, and all of our rights are civil rights as Abraham Lincoln so aptly made known when he stated our constitution was a “Civil” document.

So, why is it that we have to “conceal” our firearms when we carry? It is very similar to those in Islam who make note that women must be covered head to toe by a burqa. Are firearms so enticing that more people would carry if they knew it was not only possible, but our God given, constitutionally guaranteed right? And, if it is a constitutionally guaranteed right, why haven't our past presidents taken states to court to get laws which are passed by them which”infringe” the right, and have them overturned? Isn't that their job?

I'm sick of being relegated to being someone who must hide my belief in my constitution. I am sick of being bullied by the media, the police, the government at all levels because I desire, and do, carry a weapon on myself at all times. I am tired of trying to keep it hidden, and should it poke out for some reason being prodded by local para-militarists with guns drawn as if I am some kind of human scum, the lowest of the low, for merely exercising my right as an American citizen? Why is my life jeopardized because I wish to be equal to a para-militarist (local law enforcement)? It seems incongruous with our rights, yet it is happening throughout the United States. Are we now Mexico, Canada, Britain, Australia, or New Zealand? Why is it a law abiding citizen who has a permit is subjected to guns drawn, in your face, confrontation by these para-militarists? And, what right do they have to do so given that the state allows my right to be turned into a privilege, and at my behest, when I comply with their inane, ridiculous, unconstitutional permit system laws?


I'm tired of, in essence, having to wear a burqa over my weapons in public, because I appreciate, and exercise, my right (not state sponsored privilege) to keep and bear arms. ###


Here relax now
BPB

Friday, October 14, 2011

New York ~ Status of the Mourning Dove Initiative

So sportsmen sticking together in NY is not an option. Bet if theses birds had horns & antler they'd be on a fast track to legislation for a special season.
 BPB

Subject: Status of the Mourning Dove Initiative
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:14:02 -0400
From: Fred Z. Neff
To:  A lot of NY sportsmen


I've had several inquiries as to whether I am still pursuing a dove reclassification initiative for New York. The answer is, "YOU BET! And each day, we are getting closer to "coming out". But it sure would help if some of you would join in. The following will explain just what I mean.
 
It's been a long haul so far. But the battle hasn't even begun yet. The totals to date, which are concentrated on obtaining letters of support from sportsmen organizations, are progressing at the pace of a turtle. Positive progress is a fact. But to be frank, I'm still not satisfied. If and when I take this issue public and ask you to approach our legislators in search of sponsors for a bill calling for the reclassification of the mourning dove, it will be crucial that NY's sportsmen demonstrate that we are united on this since political careers are going to be risked. For that reason, I can assure you that if I'm not satisfied that we are truly united, I will not go forward. I've made that clear more than once. Worse, any Federation or other organization that ignores this initiative or opposes it is indicating that they are on the side of the anti-hunting crowd (e.g. - the "Save the Dove" folks) and they will love you for it. They might even make you honorary members. Is that what we want? We have a chance to bring a new outdoor opportunity to our bird hunting fraternity. God knows, we need it. Evidently, 40 other states agree.
Here is the latest update as of 10/13/11:
A. NYSCC Federation Members
There are 62 counties in New York. 49 of them have Federations that are members of NYSCC. 13 counties are not members of NYSCC. 27 of the 49 member Federations in the NYSCC have responded so far. All 27 support the initiative. 22 Federations have not responded to date. Therefore, I have no idea if the 22 are for, against, or don't care about the issue.
The 22 Federations that have not responded are:
Cattaraugus
Chautauqua
Clinton
Delaware
Essex
Franklin
Jefferson
Lewis
Nassau
Oneida
Orange
Otsego
Rensselaer
Rockland
Saratoga
Seneca
Steuben
Sullivan
Ulster
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Several specific Federations listed above are significant surprises to me due to their lack of response. I truly expected support from them. In this world of personality and issue clashes, I wonder if some are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. In addition, several representatives of these Federations have promised me letters of support, but I haven't received them to date. (A particularly depressing encounter at the NYSCC Fall Conference occurred when a well-known figure who is also the president of one of the listed Federations informed me that he didn't think that his Federation would support the initiative; the only negative response that I've received thus far). I have to state that I am amazed at this status, especially since I have personally contacted every Federation delegate that has a valid email. I intend to contact each Federation, yet again, directly through their presidents if possible.
B. NYSCC Associate Members
There are15 Associate members of the NYSCC. 6 have responded so far, all supportive. 9 have not responded ( see bold, underlined above).
The 9 Associate members who have not responded are:
Deer Search, Inc.
Mad River Club
NY Conservation Officers Association
NY Deer and Elk Farmers Association
NY Field Archers and Bowhunters Association
NY Houndsmen Conservation Association
NYS Chapter, National Wild Turkey Federation
NYS Whitetail Management Coalition
SCOPE, Inc.
C. NYSCC Affiliate Members
There are 11 Affiliate members of the NYSCC, 1 has responded in support; 10 have not responded (see bold, underlined above).
The one supporting response was from the NYS Outdoor Writers Association. FYI, here are the other 10 who haven't responded: Canandaigua Lake Duck Hunters, Elma Conservation Club, Finger Lakes Conservation Council, Leatherstocking Club, Mid-Hudson Fur Harvesters, Niagara Frontier Chapter NWTF, Seneca Lake Duck Hunters, Sullivan County Longbeards NTWF, Tribes Hill Fish and Game Club, and the Tri-Village Road and Gun Club. Some are already included in member Federations and so I'm not going to make them a priority at this point.
I have also received letters of support from 5 unaffiliated organizations:
Chenango County Federation
Oatka Fish and Game Club
Genesee Conservation Foundation, Inc.
Conservation Alliance of New York (CANY)
NY Division, Izaak Walton League
Summary:
Of the 49 member Federations of NYSCC, 27 support the initiative. That's 55%.
Of the 75 total members of NYSCC, 34 support the initiative. That's 45%.
If I include the 80 total listed here, 39 are supportive. That's 49%.
If you are reading this email and note that your Federation is one of those who have not heeded requests for support, I urge you to correct the matter ASAP since I really want to move forward. There are more than a few individuals that have volunteered to work on this initiative and some of them have suggested excellent elements with regard to a game plan once the support matter is resolved.
Meanwhile, I urge each of you to use every opportunity to keep this initiative alive in the minds of your legislators.
Finally, I have a spreadsheet that contains the details that I asked for - support or oppose, number of member clubs in your organization and the estimated number of sportsmen that you feel that you represent. This spreadsheet will be part of the "package" that I intend to distribute to supporting legislators.
Any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. More importantly, if you recognize those listed above, please ask them to respond.
Thanks.
Fred Z. Neff

Monday, September 26, 2011

JUDGES & POLICE To DISCUSS USE OF DEADLY FORCE

The Judges and Police Conference of Erie County will feature a program regarding the use of force and deadly force at their dinner meeting on October 6. The program will be part of their monthly dinner meeting and will open the forum for the public. The J & PC is an organization dedicated to law enforcement and the legal community. Non-members are invited to attend.

The dinner meeting will be held at Lucarelli’s Restaurant, 1080 Abbot Road . Lackawanna , NY at 6 PM and will feature County Court Judge, Hon. Kenneth Case, Sheriff Timothy Howard and defense attorney Daniel Killelea. Front Page columnist, Budd Schroeder will moderate the panel discussion.

The program will discuss what happens when a person is involved in an encounter ending with the use of deadly force and how they should handle the situation, starting with the call to 911, dealing with the police, and how to conduct themselves when describing the incident to the authorities.

The cost of the dinner is $30 and reservations are necessary. For those who would like to attend, call Debra Ritz at 868-6145.

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Wayne County Federation youth Pheasant hunt

I can uderstand Keith's frustration being a former WCFSC President.

To all,

I drove to the Audubon Center in Savannah late this A.M. and took a look at the sign-up sheet for I the Youth Hunt scheduled for October 8th, 2011; 4 were listed for the pheasant hunt and just one for the waterfowl hunt. We need a total of 25 for the first one and the waterfowl should have about 5 more but we will take what we can get.

      I also picked up info sheets dated 9/19/11 and have handed out a few.

 The contact person for sign-up is Frank Moses and can be reached at 315-365-3580 or fmoses@audubon.org.

 If anyone knows kids that would go to this have them contact Frank and mention they heard about it through the Wayne County Sportsman's Federation federation.
Keith Youngs
Wayne County Sportsman's Federation

Friday, September 23, 2011

BPB Schumer MIA on gun runner

FICA on West Hollywood fur ban

The Facts


In a complete mockery of the legislative process, the West Hollywood City Council voted 5 - 0 to move to a second reading of the ordinance to ban the sale of fur apparel in the City of West Hollywood. It is important to note that no actual ordinance has yet been passed.

The city moved without any vetting of retailers and without review of an independent economic impact study that showed 46% of the apparel retailers – which translates to over 90 stores in West Hollywood who sell fur.

We have built an exceptionally strong coalition of retailers that have been fighting this battle. Included in this coalition are the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and The Avenues, the group representing the four biggest business development districts in town. For the first time in history, these two groups unanimously opposed an ordinance presented by the City Council and, even after Monday’s meeting, they are continuing in their opposition to support our efforts.

What’s Next?

Yesterday our Executive Director, Keith Kaplan, did 16 media interviews (see some of the links attached) and by-in-large the coverage has ranged from neutral to overwhelmingly in our favor. A KTLA poll this morning indicated that 61% of respondents were opposed to the actions of the City Council. Even among social media sites such as Twitter and TMZ, largely utilized by the young and socially conscious, are trending in our favor.

Our legal team at Kelley Drye and their litigation team in Los Angeles are hard at work identifying legal challenges to the ban and we are liaising with attorneys for key retailers and designers. Several of these well known names, including Balenciaga and Alberta Ferretti, have already notified their landlords that they intend to terminate their leases and move out of the city and their legal teams have called on us to band together.

Our Ongoing Voice

The FICA office is moving forward with daily press releases and media stories on this issue and continues to work with a number of high-profile media outlets, updating them regularly. A story will be posted on www.furinsider.com later today titled “RIP: West Hollywood” that will include quotes from high-profile stylists, retailers and other prominent members of the community. We are working with the Chamber to barrage the City Council members with updates of the articles and polls indicating the strong trend of public sentiment against this ordinance. We are also in the process of setting up a facebook page, West Hollywood R.I.P, to provide an easily accessible outlet for the City Hall staffers and the City Council members to see the latest news on the issue.

We cannot make any promises about what the City Council will finally decide on this issue, but we are continuing to fight vigorously. As an adjunct, we are using the issue effectively as a media platform to promote positive fur messages.

Call to Action

We encourage you to send your comments to ccouncil@weho.org . As animal rights extremists across the country are writing in, we should do the same…no matter where you live. Some of the vital facts to highlight would be:

 Talk about our industry’s humane and responsible treatment of animals.

 Note that we use no endangered species and we work closely with wildlife management agencies to manage populations of species used in the fur trade.

 Tell them that every species used by the trade is an abundant, or more abundant than populations of a century ago.

 Talk to them about the furriers respect for and support of their communities; their support of charitable endeavors.

 Remind them that the cash register truly tells us what the consumer wants, and the news is that consumers want fur.

 Finally, tell them that your customer, who is affluent and travels, is upset about this ordinance and has been telling you they will avoid West Hollywood in their travels.

Feel free to contact our office with any questions by reaching out to Nicole@fur.org. Our most recent press release, along with links to some of the ongoing press coverage, is attached.


Thank you for your support.
Your FICA Team


http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2744257.html#Post2744257

National and Local Coverage on West Hollywood Fur Ban

National and Local Coverage on West Hollywood Fur Ban

To date, we have conducted the following press interviews around this issue

 WWD- 9/20/11
 The New York Times (Los Angeles bureau)- 9/20/11
 LA Tines (x2)
 Non Stop News LA –NBC LA on air (x2) 9/16/11 and 9/20/11
 Southern California Public Radio (southern California public radio KPCC airtalk with Larry Mantle) 89.3 - 9/21/11 (postponed due to breaking news story)
 CNBC – 9/20/11
 Annenberg Radio News (USC talk radio Station) – 9/20/11
 ABC News National – 9/20/11
 CBS Kcal News (x 2)– 9/20/11
 ABC News local( x2) - 9/20/11
 Fox News LA – 9/19/11
 WeHo News (online publication) – 9/18
(Links)

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/us/west-hollywood-to-ban-sales-of-fur-garments.html?_r=1

2. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/09/fur-hits-the-ban-in-west-hollywood-calif/
3.http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/09/west_hollywood_fur_ban.php

4.http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/dd659597-6b91-4b22-a94b-7f57335c9572/News/KTLA-WeHo-First-City-in-Nation-to-Ban-Fur-Sales-Jaime-Chambers-reports

5. http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p m=b&a=rp&id=870492&postId=870492&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5224&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%26DQ%3DsectionId%253A5224%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

6.http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8360921

7. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2011/09/fur-hits-the-ban-in-west-hollywood-calif/

8.http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/09/20/west-hollywood-becomes-1st-ever-us-city-to-ban-sale-of-fur/

9.http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/no-on-west-hollywood-fur-ban/1d2dcrhcz

10.http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=6495

11.http://www.nbclosangeles.com/on-air/as-seen-on/No_on_West_Hollywood_Fur_Ban_Los_Angeles-130003463.html

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

West Hollwood fur ban...poll, go vote em out.

Lets light up the wires!

Fur Information Council of America

Please tell the West Hollywood city council that you do not support
the ban on fur, their support of animal rights extremists and their
complete lack of objectivity and due process in moving forward on an
ordinance damaging to local business and infringing on personal
freedoms....

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-poll-fur-sale-ban,0,4730466,post.poll

Thank you
Nicole Smith
Director of Membership Services
FICA
(323) 782.1700

For daily scoop on fashion trends, commentary and fur insight visit
www.FurInsider.com

Monday, September 12, 2011

Gun store owner had misgivings about ATF sting

Gun store owner had misgivings about ATF sting

My God! This is/was wrong on so many levels. I suppose in the end,once it's forgotten, but by a few it will be yesterdays news.
bpb

By Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times

September 11, 2011, 9:14 p.m.
Reporting from Glendale and Rio Rico, Ariz.— In the fall of 2009, ATF agents installed a secret phone line and hidden cameras in a ceiling panel and wall at Andre Howard's Lone Wolf gun store. They gave him one basic instruction: Sell guns to every illegal purchaser who walks through the door.

For 15 months, Howard did as he was told. To customers with phony IDs or wads of cash he normally would have turned away, he sold pistols, rifles and semiautomatics. He was assured by the ATF that they would follow the guns, and that the surveillance would lead the agents to the violent Mexican drug cartels on the Southwest border.

When Howard heard nothing about any arrests, he questioned the agents. Keep selling, they told him. So hundreds of thousands of dollars more in weapons, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, walked out of the front door of his store in a Glendale, Ariz., strip mall.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Environmentalism and Animal Rights ~Ayn Rand

Environmentalism and Animal Rights More


"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[Ayn Rand (1971), "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," Return of the Primitive, 277.]



"The nature of an ideology is not determined by majority vote—but by logic, by analyzing its essence and its necessary implications. The logic of environmentalism, for example, leads to a society without technology . . . even if various environmentalists . . . would deny this . . . The full implications of an ideology’s central principle are often evaded by its adherents.
[Peter Schwartz (1985), "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," Voice of Reason.]

Thursday, September 1, 2011

DOJ Raids Gibson Guitars, But Mum's Still the Word on 'Fast and Furious'



Well people need any more proof of the intent of the government.

Sheeple will the government lure them in again? YES

Next week the government will announce the new "jobs" plan. Anyone want to bet me it has to do with the hiring of special people? For the Government to help the people....ya know committees to oversee government hiring.


Quote:

The mandate, Executive Order 13583, is titled, "A Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce." from nlpc" ###

Rochester,NY D&C ran a full page article on not being able to hire qualified minorities from with-in the cities limits. They petitioned a Judge to grant them to hire from outside the cities limits.

Let us count the ways the sheeple from 2008 will again be led to the Flavor-aid table on another promise.

With Sharpton now a msnbc puppet I'm sure we'll see a new surge of special reports.

 Let us go back to the 80's of the forced hiring of morons.

A period of which this country has not recovered from.



Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Max Kessler for Rochester 27th district



Max has worked the SCOPE table at the ESACA shows in Rochester. He is running against Willie Lightfoot of the 27th district.
He was with SCOPE on Albany last winter and filmed our meeting with Senator Nozzolio. BTW the video is on youtube.
Max is a friend of Chris Edes SCOPE Monroe county Chariman and Director.
Even though I can not vote for Max, he has my support.
IMO! So to those of you who reside & own firearms in the 27th district you need to vote for MAX KESSLE this coming fall. Lets do away with promises and elect a person who'll fight for our God given rights.

BlackPowderBill

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Why Should I Support Ron Paul? A Very Short Documentary




If you do not vote for Ron Paul in 2012 don't come ask me for help, (OF ANY KIND) in 2013 " bpb"

Wal-Mart supports anti fishing groups

Wal-Mart supports anti fishing groups
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/08/22/walmart-heirs-and-fishing-freedom-don%E2%80%99t-mix

In part:
Should these groups be successful in achieving their goals in California, you can bet that they’ll be working overtime in every other coastal state to create a network of no-take zones that bar "injury," "harm" and "harassment" of fish stocks in large areas of the nation's marine waters. Rather than supporting our nation’s fishermen by protecting American access to coastal fish stocks, it appears that Safeway would rather see our families buy only farm-raised fish and seafood caught by foreign countries outside of U.S. waters, countries with less stringent controls on fishing effort than we enjoy here in the United States of America.


Please follow the link and read the entire article.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Hornady Pa 50 cal conicals & Speer 454-457 round ball for sale

New 50 cal / 50 per box $35.00 for 2 boxes shipping included, flat rate usps small box, no insurance. Good for slow twist ML barrels.

Also Speer round ball 454 & 457 dia. 100 per box $15.00 per box shipping $5.00 no insurance. I can get 2 or 3 boxes in a small flate rate box.

NY, ya gotta pay sales tax.

Let me know @ blackpowderbill@yahoo.com

I had a customer order quite a few boxes so I took advantage of the shipping and quanity order from the wholesale house.

The 454 rb make a nice light load for the 45LC. Short range critter getters.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Sunday, July 24, 2011

NM Trappers association reverse Gov. Bill Richardson's trap ban

NM Trappers association reverse Gov. Bill Richardson's trap ban

FYI:
NEWS ALERT:
First reported by BlackPowderBill  c: July 24,2011

NM trappers association successfully fought to reverse the trapping ban's that the animals rights groups supported & Governor Bill Richardson forced on the states trappers in the fall 2010.

NMTA, cattle and wool growers spoke against the trapping ban at the recent NM Game & Fish Department commission meeting in Clayton this past Thursday. The commission voted unanimously to repeal the ban.

To the best of my knowledge this is a historical first; trappers successfully reversed a ban on trapping.

The trap ban that was previously imposed on the Blue wolf range in the Gila and Apache national forest was completely reversed to pre-trap ban status.

Regards,

Wm. J. Brookover
5336 Lincoln Rd
Ontario,NY. 14519


"BlackPowder" Bill
President
NY Muzzleloaders Assn.
http://www.nysmla.org/

another link @ Trapperman.com
New mexico trap ban reversed

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Opposition to NYS Muzzle Loader proposed regulations

Dear NYSMLA members,
Please take the time to read the 3 items below and respond to your legislators accordingly:

AS the NYSMLA President I OPPOSE any bill that classifies any ML regardless of age as a firearm. The definition and reasoning below of today's in-lines is pure sophistry, as any of us who shoot MuzzleLoaders understand. When this legislation was proposed in the past the NYSMLA was contacted for an opinion. I/we , the association was not contacted prior to the drafting of these latest bills or we could have explained the vast differences in a cartridge firearm vs. a muzzle loader.

The bill does not explain what level of felon and as we all know one DWI or a few bounced checks can make you a felon over night. There is a vast difference between a demented violent felon and a non violent felon. New York state already has very expensive process's in place to prevent firearms ownership by felons and the mentally ill.

Another item is an FFL is not required to perform an FBI NICS check on a muzzle loader unless it can have a fixed ammunition barrel attached. When a fixed ammunition barrel can be swapped out and attached to the frame , then a NICS check is required by law. This is sufficient to prevent the transfer to a person prohibited to own a firearm. The majority of Muzzle-loaders sold in NY are of the interchangeable barrel design which as stated above require the FBI NICS check.

Again as President of the NYSMLA.org I adamantly oppose this or any legislation as it will place unknown burdens on thousands of New York muzzle-loader enthusiast. As with most firearms legislation we never know the full impact till it hits the floor.

What's next, bows?

Regards,
Wm. J. Brookover
5336 Lincoln Rd
Ontario,NY. 14519
315-524-3457

"BlackPowder" Bill
President
NY Muzzleloaders Assn.
www.nysmla.org

SCOPE Director @ Large
www.scopeny.org

Williamson Conservation & Sporting Club
Past President & Present Director
www.nygunclub.org
www.blackpowderbill.com
Licensed FFL
===================================

Prohibit the possession of antique firearms, muzzle loading rifles, and muzzle loading shotguns by persons convicted of a felony or serious offense.
A 4169 Weprin Same as S 5658 Gallivan
A 8456 Weprin No same as

PURPOSE
Currently, individuals who have been convicted of a felony or certain serious offenses are prohibited from possessing or using handguns, rifles or shotguns. In the case of rifles and shotguns, this prohibition is limited to weapons using fixed ammunition, and in the case of handguns, the prohibition applies to all cartridge handguns but only loaded antique weapons.
This bill is intended to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms, rifles and shotguns from possessing and using any weapon regardless of ammunition type. This essentially means antique handguns and muzzle loading rifles and shotguns.
POSITION
We have no objection to A4169/S5658. Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing weapons is certainly a legitimate state interest1.
We oppose A8456. This bill goes outside of the realm of preventing access to weapons by legitimately prohibited persons and risks impacting the lawful owners and users of muzzle loading rifles and shotguns.
The penal law definition of “rifle” and “shotgun” should not be changed.
The definitions for rifle and shotgun currently in PL265.00(11) and PL265(12) are consistent with the definitions in federal law (18 U.S.C. 921) and should not be tinkered with. They are understood and are the basis for other state and local laws and regulations. This is the kind of change that, if made casually, invokes the law of unintended consequences.
Any legislation must be drafted in a manner that does not negatively impact fully law-abiding individuals. Any suggestion that muzzleloaders fall into the same category as cartridge guns would have a negative impact on groups and individuals including museums and Civil War reenacters.
Any text dealing with this subject must be very carefully developed.
Any specific definitions in PL265.00 concerning muzzle loading weapons must be consistent with federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(16), and should be developed with great care and with the assistance of someone with technical knowledge of the subject.
1 See District of Columbia v Heller 554 US 570 (2008)

==============================================
The text:
Sponsor: GALLIVAN / Law Section: Penal Law

S5658-2011 Actions
Jun 24, 2011: RETURNED TO SENATE
Jun 24, 2011: PASSED ASSEMBLY
Jun 24, 2011: ORDERED TO THIRD READING RULES CAL.625
Jun 24, 2011: SUBSTITUTED FOR A8456A
Jun 21, 2011: REFERRED TO CODES
Jun 21, 2011: DELIVERED TO ASSEMBLY
Jun 21, 2011: PASSED SENATE
Jun 21, 2011: ORDERED TO THIRD READING CAL.1483
Jun 21, 2011: COMMITTEE DISCHARGED AND COMMITTED TO RULES
Jun 9, 2011: REFERRED TO CODES
S5658-2011 Meetings
Rules (Jun 24, 2011 12:00:00 AM), Rules (Jun 23, 2011 12:00:00 AM), Rules (Jun 22, 2011 12:00:00 AM), Rules (Jun 21, 2011 12:00:00 AM), Rules (Jun 17, 2011 12:00:00 AM), Rules (Jun 14, 2011 12:00:00 AM)
S5658-2011 Calendars
Floor Calendar: Jun 21, 2011
S5658-2011 Votes
VOTE: FLOOR VOTE: - Jun 21, 2011

Ayes (62): Adams, Addabbo, Alesi, Avella, Ball, Bonacic, Breslin, Carlucci, DeFrancisco, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Espaillat, Farley, Flanagan, Fuschillo, Gallivan, Gianaris, Golden, Griffo, Grisanti, Hannon, Hassell-Thompson, Huntley, Johnson, Kennedy, Klein, Krueger, Kruger, Lanza, Larkin, LaValle, Libous, Little, Marcellino, Martins, Maziarz, McDonald, Montgomery, Nozzolio, O'Mara, Oppenheimer, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Ranzenhofer, Ritchie, Rivera, Robach, Saland, Sampson, Savino, Serrano, Seward, Skelos, Smith, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins, Valesky, Young, Zeldin
S5658-2011 Memo
BILL NUMBER:S5658

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the penal law, in relation to preventing certain people from
lawfully possessing certain rifles, shotguns, and firearms

PURPOSE:
To close a loophole that allows felons to possess
muzzle-loaded rifles, as well as, muzzle-loaded shotguns.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
This bill amends section 265.01 (of the Penal
Law (PL) to prevent prohibited persons (those convicted of felonies,
serious offenses or have been certified not suitable to possess a
rifle of shotgun) from lawfully possessing muzzle-loading or black
powder rifles, shotguns and firearms.

JUSTIFICATION:
The recent escalation of violence against police
officers and civilians through the use of muzzle-loaded rifles by
persons with previous violent criminal histories has aptly displayed
a loophole in the Penal Law which generally prohibits the possession,
use and/or sale of firearms. Although § 265.00 and §400.00 of the
Penal Law specifically address the requirements for licensing as well
as restrictions that disallow the use or possession of antique
pistols. The Penal Law has not proscribed the use or possession of
muzzle-loading rifles by individuals with previous violent criminal
histories or other proscribed conduct that would otherwise preclude
that person from possessing or using a firearm. This failure to
prohibit the use or possession of muzzle-loaded rifles by. said
individuals has resulted in the shooting of two New York State
Troopers within a short time span.

On June 18, 2007, State Police Officer Amanda Reif responded to a call
of a domestic disturbance in the Town of Potsdam. Upon entering the
front yard of a residence, Trooper Reif was shot in her left shoulder
by a .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle. The perpetrator had a lengthy
criminal history that precluded him from possessing or using all
firearms and
rifles as is currently defined in § 265.00. Unfortunately, the
loophole gave the perpetrator the ability to lawfully possess the
muzzle-loaded rifle as well as a muzzle-loading shot gun found at the
scene.

On August 28, 2008 State Police Officer George Stannard responded to a
call of a suicidal emotionally disturbed individual in the Town of
Harrietstown. While Trooper Stannard engaged the individual in a
dialogue, the individual drew up a .50 caliber muzzle-loading rifle
and shot trooper Stannard though his hand. Even though the individual
was precluded from carrying, using or possessing firearms as

currently defined in. § 265.00, the individual lawfully possessed the
muzzle-loading rifle due to the loophole.

The Penal Law must be amended to prevent persons (those convicted of
felonies, serious offenses or have been certified not suitable to
possess a rifle or shot gun) from possessing muzzle-loading or black
powder rifles, shotguns and firearms.

With advances in modern technology, these guns can now be loaded and
discharged faster and with more accuracy than ever before. Modern
muzzle loading rifles are essentially a modern single shot rifle.
They look and operate very much like a sporting rifle and allow
accurate shots at distances up to 200 yards with the use of saboted,
jacketed bullets and Pyrodex Pellets, these rifles can be reloaded in
seconds and the use of shotgun primers for ignition allows them to be
used in any type of weather. Numerous accessories, such as high power
scopes and polymer tipped projectiles, make modern muzzle-loaders as
convenient and dangerous as any rifle or shotgun.

This bill would restore the Legislature's original intent to prevent
prohibited persons' (those convicted of felonies, serious offenses or
have been certified not to possess a rifle or shotgun) from lawfully
possessing muzzle-loading or black powder rifles, shotguns or firearms.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
A.11459 of 2010

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
On the 180th day after becoming a law.

Opposition to Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Purchases by N.Y. State .

N.Y.S. Conservation Council
Action Alert
Opposition to Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Purchases by N.Y. State .


Good afternoon:

I am communicating with you today to ask you to weigh in as a taxpayer and member of the sporting community regarding opposition to the Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Purchases by N.Y. State .

Recently D.E.C. Officials have stated publicly that the department plans on fulfilling its commitment to purchasing the Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Lands . The Finch Pruyn Lands (60 Thousand +- Acres) are located in the towns of Newcomb, Indian Lake, North Hudson, Minerva and Long Lake and Follensby Pond (14Thousand +- Acres) is located outside of Tupper Lake .
Combined purchase price for both pieces of land is estimated at 70 million dollars. Currently the lands are leased by clubs and there are many hunting cabins on the lands and many miles of roads utilized for logging and sporting access. If the State buys the lands in fee and they are designated as wilderness things will change drastically. Cabins removed, clubs disbanded, roads closed and no motorized vehicle access. Essentially the lands will be inaccessible to the majority of sportsmen and women and taxpayers. In addition, sustainable forestry will be terminated and businesses associated with it will be devastated.

A more reasonable approach to conserving the resources of these beautiful areas would be for the State to purchase Conservation Easements on these lands and purchase in fee several sensitive areas as the attached letter to Governor Cuomo suggests.


Please forward this alert to others with an interest in maintaining access for all instead of a select few and those interested in sustaining the sporting traditions. Please weigh in!

To send a comment to Governor Cuomo and key elected officials:

1. Highlight the letter below starting with the date and ending before the solid black line across the page. Then click edit, then copy.
July 12, 2011


The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
NYS State Capitol Building
Albany , NY 12224
Re: Support For Conservation Easements on Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Lands

Opposition to Fee Purchase of these lands by New York State .

Dear Governor Cuomo:

As a taxpayer and member of the sporting community I oppose the fee purchase of the Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond lands by N.Y. State .

As a taxpayer and sportsmen I support the Conservation Easement option as a more reasonable approach to conserving the natural resources, maintaining sustainable forestry and local business, and providing access and recreational opportunities for a much broader cross section of outdoor enthusiasts.

I support the fee purchase of the site of the philosopher’s camp on Follensby Pond and the Ok Slip Falls and Hudson River Gorge on the Finch Pruyn Lands.

The reason for my position is as follows:
As a taxpayer I am opposed to the purchases which are estimated to amount to 70 Million dollars. At a time when thousands are without jobs in N.Y.S. and thousands are about to be laid off, college tuitions are being raised and we are cutting back educational opportunities and health care programs I don’t believe N.Y.S. can afford such an extravagant expenditure of funds. Additionally, the purchase and subsequent classification will devastate the sustainable forest industry in the area and deal a death blow to small businesses already struggling.

As an active member of the sporting community I adamantly oppose the purchase because the Finch Pruyn and Follensby Pond Lands that are located in the Adirondack Park will most certainly be classified as wilderness. As such the sporting community and their families will no longer be able to enjoy these beautiful areas; with the purchase 200 hunting cabins will be torn down and hundreds of sportsmen and women displaced, invasive species management will become impossible; small businesses will suffer a loss of business from the sporting community and only an elite few will be able to enjoy the area.

Please use your authority to stop these fee purchases; we cannot afford it, it is not the best way to conserve the natural resources for all to enjoy, to sustain the critical forestry industry or to sustain local businesses in these small communities.


Thank-you for your consideration regarding this very important decision!

Sincerely yours,



Name:

Address:

C. Senator Mark Grisanti, Chair Encon. Committee
Senator Betty Little
Senator John A. DeFrancisco, Chair Finance Committee
Commissioner Martens __________________________________________________________________________

2. Click the following link http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact/GovernorContactForm.php

3. Complete the required contact information and in the subject box type: Opposition to Purchase of Finch And Follensby Lands and under topics scroll to bottom of the list and click "other".

4. Move your cursor to the comment box and go to edit then paste to place the comment in the email. Then answer the question and hit submit form. Your comment will be sent to Governor Cuomo. Close out the Governor's home page, which should take you back to the action alert.

5. To copy key elected officials click the link below on the far left to open an email message. When the email opens be sure all recipients are listed. Copy others as you see fit such as your elected officials.

little@nysenate.gov;jdefranc@nysenate.gov;grisanti@nysenate.gov

6. In the subject section type "Opposition to Finch and Follensby Purchase"

7. Move your cursor to the text box and go to edit then paste to place the comment in the email.

8. Fill in your name and address, title, etc. at the bottom of the e-mail.

9. Hit send and your comment will be sent to the key Elected Officials.

Modify comments as you see fit and add your own lead in and closing statements.
10. To copy Commissioner Martens click the link below. Complete the required contact information. Under the subject section enter "Opposition to Finch and Follensby Purchase". Go to the comment section and hit paste; the comment will be placed in the e-mail. Complete the name and address section, hit send and a copy of your communication to Governor Cuomo will be sent to Commissioner Martens. Close out the DEC page.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/407.html

11. It is important that the Governor receive some hard copies. To send a hard copy open the attachment and print.

If you need assistance or have questions, please let me know.

Thank-you for taking the time to express your opinion on this very important issue. Please act today!

Walt Paul
NYS Conservation Council
Access and Land Use Specialist

For more information and updates visit us at www.nyscc.com. The New York State Conservation Council is the oldest Conservation organization in N.Y.S. The mission of the Council is to conserve, protect, restore and perpetuate forests, wildlife and scenic and recreational areas. If you are not a member go to http://www.nyscc.com/getinvolved/membershipinformation.html

to lend your support!

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

NYS CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC. 2011 Resolutions

Here is the final list of resolutions that will be discused at the fall meeting.


NYS CONSERVATION COUNCIL, INC. 2011 RESOLUTIONS


Subject: Antler Restrictions / Deer Management / Yearling Buck Protection


1-11 Nassau County

Whereas it is the opinion of the Nassau County Federation that deer populations in New York State, especially buck numbers, are currently substantially down from previous numbers in many areas and the herd must be restored;

Whereas New York’s basic deer management strategies regimes are almost 100 years old, as the 3 inch antler definition of a legal buck was adopted in 1911 and do not reflect recently emerging advances and techniques provided for by scientific deer management;

Whereas the deer herd should be restored in a balanced and biologically sound way by increasing the buck to doe ratio by increasing the numbers and age of the buck population;

Whereas implementation of new deer management techniques and harvest regimes could substantially increase deer hunter participation and satisfaction, and ultimately provide a better and more efficient tool to achieve the levels of annual deer harvest needed for better herd management;

Whereas there is growing interest among New York hunters to refine their role as deer herd managers and expand their hunting opportunities and satisfactions, including the opportunity to pursue and take more mature bucks and create adult sex ratios that are in balance with deer herd health;

Whereas the County Federations have reported from areas such as Ulster County, Sullivan County, Greene County, Schoharie County and other areas have overwhelming support for improving buck hunting in their local area;

Whereas the DEC implemented antler harvest restrictions in 2005 in Ulster County in two units and in 2006 in Sullivan County in two units and sportsmen are happy with the program and would like to expand the program to include additional adjoining counties;

Whereas the expansion to include additional units is also supported by NYSCC members Sullivan County Federation of Sportsmen, Ulster County Federation of Sportsmen, Greene County Federation of Sportsmen, Schoharie County Conservation Association, Dutchess County Federation of Sportsmen, Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen, Nassau County Fish and Game, NYSWMC, and QDMA;

Whereas improved buck hunting could establish a statewide precedent and have far reaching implications;

Whereas as a large number of the hunters in many of the counties that are requesting antler harvest restrictions are made up of metropolitan hunters (NYC and Long Island) are primarily from long Island such as Unit 3A - 87 of 435 hunters, or 20% total of which 60 of the 87, or 69% are Long Island Hunters, Unit 4G – 99 of 647 hunters, or 15% total, of which 70 of the 99, or 70% are Long Island Hunters, Unit 4R – 154 of 434 hunters, or 35% total, of which 103 of the 154, or 67% are Long Island Hunters Unit 4S – 35 of 328 hunters, or 11% total, of which 21 of the 35, or 60% are Long Island Hunters, Unit 4W – 338 of 899 hunters, or 38% total, of which 217 of the 338 hunters, from the DEC Reported Hunt Activity for 2009 furnished by Div. of Fish, wildlife, and Marine Resources;

Whereas, as a result of informal polling of its member clubs, it is the opinion of the Nassau County Federation that an overwhelming number of those regular season hunters in the other counties who reside on Long Island are in favor of antler harvest restrictions;

Whereas improved buck hunting will benefit all New York hunters who wish to hunt in these areas;

Whereas, although they are not residents, many metropolitan hunters own property in the units in question and they are licensed hunters in NY State that have exhausted all other avenues at their disposal so this issue has now become statewide since they have not been able to effect regulatory change, it may now require legislation to effect a change; and so it is the opinion of Nassau County that members of the NYSCC should support their fellow NYSCC members on this resolution requesting antler harvest restrictions;

Whereas sportsmen with the support of their communities requested the DEC improve buck hunting by implementing yearling buck protection in 2009, the DEC withdrew the proposal and other remedies, including sportsmen, community and political efforts, have not been successful in accomplishing this requested change;

BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC position be that an alternative deer harvest strategy that includes antler harvest restrictions needed to achieve greater levels of maturity among the buck segment of the deer population be implemented in wildlife management units that have the support of the majority of local NYSCC member county federations, such as unit 3A, 4G, 4R, 4S and 4W on an unit by unit basis and that NYSCC advocate for and support regulation and legislative change to implement said position including conveying said support in writing to the DEC.

Contact: Charles A. Bevilacqua, 3 Albert Avenue, Syosset, NY 11791 516/921-1429-H

Resolution Committee: The Resolution Committee was evenly split on whether this was a regional issue or one of statewide significance. The committee decided to pass it on to the appropriate topic specific committees for their input.

Big Game Committee: Support – vote: 6 support, 4 oppose

Comments: It was agreed by members of the Big Game Committee that, considering the similarities of the above resolutions, to handle as one issue, rather than five separate initiatives as to save time and debate, as points for and against each measure would be the same.

Supporters of the resolutions state this is a “home rule” issue and should be respected, despite comments from supporters indicating no definition of “home rule” exists (some comments express a county issue, while others derive “home rule” is on a WMU basis.)
Opponents believe this remains a state issue, as, beyond the lack of a “home rule” definition, by state law, wildlife, including deer, are owned by the people of the state (regardless of county the deer may be residing in), with management being the responsibility of the state (as deer can readily cross WMU and County borders).

Support for “AR” as a local issue is largely justified by opinion surveys, designed without involvement of the Big Game Committee (no vetting), yet answers to concerns brought by regions opposed to the rule-making such as validity of stated claims that “AR” will improve hunter numbers, youth involvement and increased appeal to non-resident tourism, remain unaddressed by supporters. Additional questions concerning sustainability of “AR” initiatives, an element demanded by the North American Wildlife Conservation Model, and the lack of
evidence of the biological issues claimed that will be addressed (trickle rut harming herd, State shows no evidence of existence of “trickle rut” to be addressed), further compounds the challenges to making a wise decision.

With sportsmen unity of paramount importance, the road to discovery of essential facts will create more unity than debate over public opinion surveys and personal desire, while aiding in preventing potentially poor decisions, largely made to “keep the peace.”

By vote of the Big Game Committee, the combined resolutions passed by a 6 For, 4 Against margin. It is clear that positions across the State have not changed. However, by vote the committee has chosen to endorse the loosely defined “home rule” aspect.

Recommendation: SUPPORT, however, this issue remains a divisive and contentious issue within the ranks of Big Game Hunters, demanding very careful examination of all information available, to reach the wisest decision possible.



Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 7 support, 2 oppose
The archery committee was strong on this group of resolutions. An overwhelming
number of archery committee members and regions were willing to work with others
sportsmen from the Southeastern Region of the state that have a strong desire and need
for this program. The presentation by Dick Henry before the committee meeting was
outstanding showing how this program can reduce predator populations.

A comprehensive report on yearling buck protection in AR pilot area revealed that
yearling harvest has gone down to only 15% of the harvest and adult bucks now make up
85% of the harvest. Jeremy Hurst, DEC Deer Biologist stated that this is correct and that
this is what we (the DEC) expected from the program. Prior to the ARs the harvest was
57%+ yearling bucks. There has been a steady increase in the harvest of 2.5 and 3.5 year
old bucks since the AR program began. The 3.5 year old harvest is now 36% of the
harvest. This represents a 258% increase in number of 3.5 year old bucks being taken.
For comparison, statewide less than 15% of the bucks harvested are 3.5 years old.
DEC survey, March 2009, showed strong support in the areas submitting resolutions of
67% in favor of Antler Restrictions in the proposed areas. The AR expansion supporters
list presented was extensive showing grass roots community support.

The majority of the committee felt AR resolutions are about supporting fellow sportsmen
who know what is best in their area’s habitat and that the program has demonstrated
positive results.


Legislative Committee: Oppose vote: 0 support, 4 oppose
Comments :
• The Legislative Committee takes the position that this resolution is not based on sound biological science.
• Management control should not go through a legislative process it should be left to the DEC.

2-11 NYS Chapter, Quality Deer Management Association

Whereas it is sound deer biology to have a balanced age structure of bucks in the herd;

Whereas many deer biologists support protecting yearling bucks in order to promote a balanced herd structure and sound deer management;

Whereas New York State buck harvests are comprised of 59% yearlings according to DEC harvest 2009, http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/63042.html, one of the highest percentages of any state in the nation, see page 7, QDMA Whitetail Report 2011 http://www.qdma.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Whitetail-Report-2011-low-res.pdf and;

Whereas the NYSCQDMA “we” are confident in the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation deer biologists’ ability to establish a standard that will protect the majority of yearling bucks while making the majority of other age classes available for harvest;

Whereas we are also confident in the abilities of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation deer biologists to objectively monitor the effects of any such program created in New York;

Whereas a Cornell HDRU 2007 survey found that 59% of hunters statewide supported protecting yearling bucks;

Whereas sportsmen such as the federations of Sullivan, Ulster, Greene, and Schoharie counties have requested implementing an antler restriction program of three one inch points on one side that was designed to protect the majority of yearling bucks by DEC biologists in certain areas such as: WMUs 3A, 4G, 4R, 4S and 4W as the DEC stated at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/arcatskill09.pdf;

Whereas we are comfortable with the levels of support and opposition in each WMU as determined by the spring 2009 hunter surveys, public meetings and public input;

Whereas furthermore we commend the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation willingness to adopt new and progressive strategies to protect the majority of yearling bucks in the above-mentioned WMUs;

Whereas furthermore we offer our assistance to help New York State Department of Environmental Conservation staff to educate and/or inform sportsmen and women on the proposed changes;

BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC take any and all steps to assist the DEC to adopt progressive strategies to protect the majority of yearling bucks in the above-mentioned WMUs as requested by NYSCC member county federations and that immediately a letter be sent to the DEC strongly encouraging them to adopt yearling buck protection in requested WMU’s.

Contact: NYS QDMA John Rybinski, john101@windstream.net

Resolution Committee: The Resolution Committee was evenly split on whether this was a regional issue or one of statewide significance. The committee decided to pass it on to the appropriate topic specific committees for their input.

Big Game Committee: Support - vote: 6 support, 4 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County


Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 7 support, 2 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County




3-11 Schoharie County

Whereas the white tail deer population in New York State, especially the buck numbers, is currently down from previous years in many areas, and the herd needs to be restored;
Whereas New York State's deer management models are nearly 100 years old as the 3 inch antler definition of a legal buck was adopted in 1911 and may not reflect the recent advances and techniques provided by some newer scientific deer management models;

Whereas the white tail deer herd might be restored by increasing the buck to doe ratio, thereby increasing the number and age of the buck population;

Whereas the proposed implementation of new white tail deer management techniques and harvest programs may increase deer hunter participation and satisfaction, thereby resulting in an improved and more efficient tool to achieve a raised level of annual deer harvest numbers needed for better herd management;

Whereas there is growing interest among New York State white tail deer hunters to participate in deer herd management, and to expand hunting opportunities and raise satisfaction levels, by increasing the opportunity to pursue and harvest mature bucks and create adult sex ratios that are in balance with deer herd health;

Whereas the NYS DEC implemented antler harvest restrictions in 2005 in Ulster County in two WMU units, and in 2006 two WMU units in Sullivan County. The white tail deer hunters report satisfaction with the program in these areas, and would like to expand the program to include additional counties including more upstate counties in Region 4;

Whereas Schoharie County is centrally located in the NYSDEC Region 4 and has overwhelming support for improving white tail deer hunting in their local area; and proposes that WMU 4G, a unit largely within the boundaries of Schoharie' County, be included in the implementation of an antler harvest restriction program;

Whereas the DEC March 2009 survey of hunters that hunt in Unit 4G, including those from outside the area found that 65% supported adopting an antler restriction of 3 points on one side;

Whereas the expansion to include Unit 4G is also supported by several county conservation federations including the Schoharie County Conservation Association, and QDMA. This expansion would provide the first WMU in the upstate area of New York State, affording more upstate area whitetail deer hunters the opportunity to experience hunting in an area with an alternative deer harvest strategy program in place.

BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC shall support an alternative deer harvest strategy that may include antler harvest restrictions, to achieve a greater level of maturity and numbers among bucks of certain area deer populations, and that such programs be supported and implemented in the NYSDEC Wildlife Management Units that have the support of the local NYSCC member county conservation or sportsman federations.

Contact: Dave Wood, 518-827-4155, dlwood@midtel.net
Doug Handy, 518-295-7779 dchandy513@aol.com


Resolution Committee: The Resolution Committee was evenly split on whether this was a regional issue or one of statewide significance. The committee decided to pass it on to the appropriate topic specific committees for their input.

Big Game Committee: Support – vote: 6 support, 4 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County


Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 7 support, 2 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County

4-11 Sullivan County Improving Buck Hunting


Whereas deer populations in New York State, especially buck numbers, are currently substantially down from previous numbers in many areas and the herd must be restored;

Whereas New York’s basic deer (buck) management strategies regimes are almost 100 years old as the 3 inch antler definition of a legal buck was adopted in 1911 and do not reflect recently emerging advances and techniques provided for by scientific deer management;

Whereas the deer herd should be restored in a balanced and biologically sound way by increasing the buck to doe ratio by increasing the numbers and age of the buck population;

Whereas implementation of new deer management techniques and harvest regimes could substantially increase deer hunter participation and satisfaction, and ultimately provide a better and more efficient tool to achieve the levels of annual deer harvest needed for better herd management;

Whereas there is growing interest among New York hunters to refine their role as deer herd managers and expand their hunting opportunities and satisfactions, including the opportunity to pursue and take more mature bucks and create adult sex ratios that are in balance with deer herd health;

Whereas certain areas such as Sullivan County have overwhelming support for improving buck hunting in their local area;

Whereas the DEC implemented antler harvest restrictions in 2006 in Sullivan County in two units and the sportsmen of Sullivan Federation are happy with the program and would like to expand the program to include the remainder of the county contained in Unit 3A;

Whereas the expansion to include Unit 3A is also supported by NYSCC members Ulster County Federation of Sportsmen, Greene County Federation of Sportsmen, Schoharie County Conservation Association, Dutchess County Federation of Sportsmen, Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen, Nassau County Fish and Game, NYSWMC and QDMA;

Whereas improved buck hunting could establish a statewide precedent and have far reaching implications;

Whereas improved buck hunting will benefit all New York hunters who wish to hunt in this region;

Whereas sportsmen, with the support of their communities, requested the DEC improve buck hunting by implementing yearling buck protection for unit 3A in 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2010 and the DEC did not adopt the proposal and other remedies, such as meetings with DEC regional staff, DEC Albany staff, DEC Commissioner Grannis and efforts on our behalf by Senators, Assembly Members and County Legislators, have not been successful in accomplishing this requested change;


BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC position be that an alternative deer harvest strategy that includes antler harvest restrictions needed to achieve greater levels of maturity among the buck segment of the deer population be implemented in wildlife management units that have the support of the majority of local NYSCC member county sportsmen federations, such as unit 3A, on a unit by unit basis and that NYSCC advocate for and support regulation and legislative change to implement said position including conveying said support in writing to the DEC.

Contact: David Hartman, PO Box 191, Grahamsville NY 12740 845/985-0087


Resolution Committee: The Resolution Committee was evenly split on whether this was a regional issue or one of statewide significance. The committee decided to pass it on to the appropriate topic specific committees for their input.

Big Game Committee: Support – vote: 6 support, 4 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County

Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 7 support, 2 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County

Legislative Committee: Oppose - vote: 0 support, 4 oppose
Comments :
• The Legislative Committee takes the position that this resolution is not based on sound biological science.
• Management control should not go through a legislative process it should be left to the DEC.

5-11 Ulster County

Whereas deer populations in New York State, especially buck numbers, are currently substantially down from previous numbers in many areas and the herd must be restored;

Whereas New York’s basic deer management strategies and practices are almost -100 years old as the 3 inch antler definition of a legal buck was adopted in 1911 and do not reflect recent advances and techniques rapidly emerging from the science of deer management;

Whereas the deer herd should be restored in a balanced and biologically sound way by increasing the buck to doe ratio by increasing the numbers-and age of the buck population;

Whereas implementation of new deer management techniques and harvest regimes could substantially increase deer hunter participation and satisfaction, and ultimately provide a better and more efficient tool to achieve the levels of annual deer harvest currently needed for better overall herd management;

Whereas there is growing interest among New York hunters to refine their role as deer herd managers and expand their hunting opportunities and satisfactions, including the opportunity to pursue and take more mature bucks and create adult sex ratios that are in balance with deer herd health;

Whereas certain areas, such as Ulster County, have demonstrated strong local support for improving buck hunting in their local area;

Whereas the DEC implemented antler harvest restrictions in 2005 in Ulster County in two units and the sportsmen of New York who hunt in the affected WMU's are satisfied with the antler restriction program and furthermore would like to expand the program to include the remainder of the county that includes WMU 3A;

Whereas the expansion to include Unit 3A is also supported by Sullivan County Federation of Sportsmen, Greene County Federation of Sportsmen, Schoharie County Conservation Association, Duchess County Federation of Sportsmen, Suffolk Alliance of Sportsmen, Nassau County Fish and Game, NYS Chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association, Ulster County Farm Bureau, Delaware County Farm Bureau, Sullivan County Farm Bureau and Schoharie County Farm Bureau;

Whereas improved buck hunting could serve to promote hunter participation and enhance long term hunter satisfaction;

BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC support an alternative deer harvest strategy that includes antler harvest restrictions needed to achieve greater levels of maturity among the buck segment of the deer population in Wildlife Management Units that have the support of the majority of local NYSCC member county. sportsmen's federations, such as WMU 3A, on a unit by unit basis and NYSCC advocate for and support regulation and legislative change to implement said position including conveying said support in writing to the DEC;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the DEC embrace, coordinate and promptly adopt such strategies.

Contact:
Jay Martin, P.O. Box 275, Accord, NY 12404
845/626-7659 captainjaymartin@yahoo.com
Jim Smiseth, 845/687-0738 vidajimtwc1@aol.com

Resolution Committee: The Resolution Committee was evenly split on whether this was a regional issue or one of statewide significance. The committee decided to pass it on to the appropriate topic specific committees for their input.

Big Game Committee: Support – vote: 6 support, 4 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County

Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 7 support, 2 oppose
See comments for 1-11 Nassau County


Legislative Committee: Oppose - vote: 0 support, 4 oppose
Comments :
• The Legislative Committee takes the position that this resolution is not based on sound biological science.
• Management control should not go through a legislative process it should be left to the DEC.

Subject: Home Rule

6-11 Dutchess County

Resolution To Introduce An NYSCC Policy To Support and Promote Home Rule

Whereas the New York State Conservation Council, Inc. (hereafter the Council) is a state-wide organization whose member clubs, organizations and individual members, represent are from all nine (9) DEC Regions and nearly all of the state's 62 counties.

Whereas it has been become increasingly apparent that the interests and expectations of the Council members have become more complex and more diverse in recent years.

Whereas it is with increasing frequency that issues being debated in Council meetings and among members could have been more effectively resolved at the local and regional level.

Whereas these debates have distracted the full body of the Council from focusing on issues of state-wide implication and importance.


Whereas the primary purpose of a resolution is to delineate a position for the New York State Conservation Council on matters of STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE, ergo, resolutions should not be entertained by the Council if they have limited application or their adoption would resolve what is a local or regional issue.

Whereas most local issues can be resolved by promulgation of a State Regulation by an appropriate agency, department, authority via a Rule Change as stipulated by State law; or through a Local Law as adopted by a municipal or county government, the Council should encourage the interested parties to resolve the issue without Council involvement and the Council should encourage the interested parties to exercise their fundamental right to Home Rule.

And Whereas when the Council takes a formal position on a local or regional issue it unnecessarily undermines a County's or Region's right to and expectation of Home Rule.

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Council – by policy – will no longer take a formal position on any issue which can be resolved at the Local or Regional level; and as a matter of policy the Council will no longer entertain Resolutions which do not clearly define the need for Council involvement and at a minimum only resolutions which by necessity would require a change to State Law, Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) or adoption of a State-Wide Regulation, or have an abundantly clear State-wide implication, and lacking such will not be considered by the full body of delegates.

Contact:
Kevin Haight – Dutchess County Delegate NYSCC
William R. Conners – Dutchess County Legislative Vice President

Resolution Committee: Support. The Resolution Committee voted to support this resolution. This resolution strengthens many of the procedures already in place for the resolution process and makes them a formal policy of the NYSCC. It better defines a regional issue verses one of state-wide significance. The committee did have some reservations in that this may limit the ability of the council to support/oppose some resolutions.

Legislative Committee: Legislative Committee: Oppose - vote: 0 support, 4 oppose
Comments:
• It is hard to define local versus state wide issues.
• If this resolution was adopted it could limit the involvement of the NYSCC on issues not clearly defined as a state wide or local issue.


Subject: Coyotes

7-11 Erie County

Coyote Reclassification

WHEREAS Coyote populations in NYS continue to rise, and,

WHEREAS Coyote/ Human conflicts, including coyote attacks on persons and pets, have risen at an alarming rate, as illustrated by recent news stories reported by: MSNBC (6/30/2010)*1, NY Times (7/2/2010)*2 , the Greenwich Times (7/7/2010)*3 , NBCNY (1/27/2010)*4 , UPI (July 1, 2010)*5 , the LA Times (7/20/2010)*6, WIVB-Buffalo (4/16/2009)*7 and,

WHEREAS impacts of Coyote predation on many species of wildlife, including whitetail deer fawns, pheasants, turkeys and other wildlife suggests negative impacts on other wildlife populations, as indicated by SUNY-ESF coyote study*9, Dr. Jacqueline Frair, and,

WHEREAS current classification of Coyote as a protected furbearer acts as a detriment to effective management due to closed season protection, and,

WHEREAS increasing Coyote numbers has also increased health concerns due to increased potentials for rabies exposure to people and their pets, as evidenced by September 8, 2010 Associated Press Article entitled “Rabies found in New York coyote that attacked people in Westchester County”*8, and,

WHEREAS provisions in the NYS Environmental Conservation Law, 11-0523, provides for the taking of destructive or menacing wildlife without a permit
(§ 11-0523. Destructive or menacing wildlife; taking without permit.
1 - Owners and lessees and members of their immediate families actually occupying or cultivating lands, and persons authorized in writing and actually employed by them in cultivating such lands, may take (a) unprotected wildlife other than birds and (b) starlings, common crows and, subject to section 11-0513, pigeons, when such wildlife is injuring their property or has become a nuisance thereon. Such taking may be done in any manner, notwithstanding any provision of the Fish and Wildlife Law, except section 11-0513, or the Penal Law or any other law.
6 - Raccoons, coyotes or fox injuring private property may be taken by the owner, occupant or lessee thereof, or an employee or family member of such owner, occupant or lessee, at any time in any manner.
8. No license or permit from the department is required for any taking authorized by this section.)
with section 6 of this provision specifically identifying coyote as a destructive or menacing species, and,

WHEREAS many eastern states surrounding NY either classify Coyote as “varmint”, or have no closed season or other protections whatsoever, and,

WHEREAS recent alterations in regulations concerning season length, bag limits and pelt sealing have shown ineffective in enhancing Coyote management in NYS,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NYSCC pursue a change in regulation with the NYS DEC to reclassify the Coyote as an “unprotected wildlife species”, eliminating all protections from this menacing and destructive species in NYS.

Contact for more information:
Rich Davenport, 716-510-7952
Email: rich@weloveoutdoors.com


Coyote info sources/ links:

*1 - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38015001/ns/us_news-life/
*2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/nyregion/03coyotes.html
*3 - http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Greenwich-father-and-daughter-shaken-after-N-Y-648606.php
*4 - http://www.nbcnewyork.com/on-air/as-seen-
on/Coyote_Attack_in_Westchester_County_Prompts_Search_New_York.html
*5 - http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/07/01/Coyotes-attack-children-in-Rye-NY/UPI-33321278014478/
*6 - http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/20/nation/la-na-ny-coyotes-20100720
*7 - http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/Coyote_attacks_local_man_20090416
*8 - http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/rabies_found_in_new_york_coyot.html
*9 - http://www.esf.edu/efb/frair/coyote/coyote_main.htm


Legislative Committee: Vote: none
Comment:
• If past it would take management control / authority away from the DEC.

Big Game Committee: Oppose - vote: 4 support, 6 opposed.
Comments: Big Game Committee was split concerning the resolution to re-classify the Coyote and eliminate seasonal protections to allow hunting of this species year-round. Although damage to other wildlife appears on the rise, and human-coyote conflicts are becoming a difficult public safety issue, not enough information exists yet to get behind this initiative. By vote of the Big Game Committee, the measure failed to pass by a vote of 4 support, 6 opposed.
Recommendation: OPPOSED

Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support – vote: 5 support, 4 oppose
The committee voted in favor of Erie County Coyote reclassification. Members felt that
the coyotes are having a severe impact on the deer and small game populations. It was
shown by Dick Henry, DEC Retired, in his presentation that increasing the number of
bucks on the landscape would help reduce the fawns available to predators such as
coyotes. Perhaps this would have a greater impact on the Coyote population. Gordon
Batcheller of the DEC stated he was against the reclassification stating that Coyotes have
value, apparently speaking on behalf of the trappers. To Committee members Deer have
a much higher value. Committee voted 5 in favor and 4 opposed.



Small Game Committee: Oppose - vote: 2 support, 3 opposed
.There was a discussion on the regulation protecting coyotes in the Spring when their young are born. Some felt that the matter should be left up to the DEC and others reasoned that their numbers were increasing throughout NYS and that a closed season was no longer justified.


Fur Resources Committee: Oppose
We felt the "coyote" resolution made statements that are simply not fact, and also felt the coyote is a resource of value. Listing the coyote as a "varmint" detracts from that status. We also realize that attempting to create a hunting season during a time of the year when coyote pups were being born, may not glean a lot of support from the DEC or others.


Subject: Firearms

8-11 YATES COUNTY

In Support of Amendment of Article 400 of the Penal Law of the State of New York To Provide for a "Shall-Issue” Standard for Pistol Permits in the State-of New York

WHEREAS, Section 400.00 of the Penal Law of the State of New York, entitled "Licenses to carry, possess, repair and dispose of firearms." Is the statute which is applicable to the issuance and administration of pistol permits in the State of New York; and

WHEREAS, Section 400.00 of the Penal Law applies no meaningful objective standard for the issuance of pistol permits to residents of the State of New York as it is presently constituted; and

WHEREAS, each City and County has a separate "licensing officer" who is responsible for processing and issuance of pistol permits; and

WHEREAS, the lack of meaningful objective standards for the issuance of pistol permits has resulted in a patchwork of policies for issuance of permits, with the licensing
officers' various philosophical position on guns often being the controlling criteria in the issuance of pistol permits; and

WHEREAS, the lack of an objective standard for the issuance of pistol permits to residents of the State is a denial of the due process of law; and

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides that: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"; and

WHEREAS, recent Federal case law and opinions of the Attorney General of the United States have held that such Second Amendment rights extend to individuals and is not limited collectively to the states; and

WHEREAS, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; and

WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear arms is such a privilege; and

WHEREAS, the recent Supreme Court rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases have confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms extend to the individual through the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution; and

WHEREAS, Section 400.00 of the Penal Law presently abridges the right to keep and bear arms as a result of the arbitrary and capricious provisions thereof and accordingly appears to be "unconstitutional" pursuant to the standards of the Heller and McDonald• Supreme Court decisions; and;

WHEREAS, the majority of the various states of the United states have adopted "shall issue" legislation applicable to the issuance of pistol permits; and .

WHEREAS, there is vast evidence and statistical data establishing that, in states where "shall issue" standards for pistol permits have been implemented, the incidence of violent crimes has diminished.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT
The New York State Conservation Council initiate and support legislation to amend Section 400.00 of the Penal Law of the State of New York to provide for "shall issue" standards to be applicable to the issuance of pistol permits to residents of the State of New York and provide that pistol permits shall be issued to applicants therefore except when good cause is shown why the applicant should not be issued a pistol permit. Good cause shall be limited to prior felony conviction, serious mental illness, alcohol or substance addiction or other cause of similar magnitude.

Legislative Committee: Support - vote: 4 support, 0 oppose
Comments: None


Firearms & Ammunition Committee: Oppose
1. While we share the frustration of the authors with the sometimes seemingly arbitrary decisions that come out of the pistol licensing system, resolution will be a complex task. This proposal does not clearly state a clearly defined problem nor include a specific solution.

2. It is unlikely that any court will find the section 400 of the NYS Penal Law unconstitutional. While its application in individual cases may be subject to challenge, the overall law appears compliant with the Heller decision. One can argue that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that any restriction or condition imposed by the state is infringing on a fundamental right. The fact remains, however, that in the political world, under real laws and in real courts, every constitutional right is subject to some level of regulation or restriction. As a matter of law, the 2nd Amendment means what Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller. Heller did establish that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual not a collective right. Nevertheless, the majority opinion did clearly state that this right is not absolute. Governments can regulate firearms for legitimate state interests; they just cannot do so in a manner that is a defacto a ban.

3. Possession in dwellings or place of business is shall issue and is rarely an issue. Licenses for hunting and/or target use are usually issued but do sometimes reflect some judicial creativity.

4. The question of judicial discretion with respect to the issuance of concealed carry licenses has been litigated multiple times and has been upheld every time under state law. The licensing officer may, and in fact is expected, to make subjective judgments as to the fitness of applicants to receive licenses. The law gives them considerable discretionary authority and this authority has been upheld in litigation. The problem arises when they impose their personal or local political philosophy rather than use the fair and reasonable standards on which these decisions were intended to be based. This has resulted in a lack of consistency in the administration of a system that was intended to function statewide with uniform criteria and administrative procedure.

5. A fully satisfactory solution will require a rewriting of this entire section of the law. This is an issue which has significant ramifications across the criminal justice system. While the Council has an interest and can be expect to contribute, the leadership of this task is not within its scope of its responsibilities.


9-11 NIAGARA COUNTY

WHEREAS, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation restricts the types of implements that can be used to hunt big game to certain locations within New York state, thus preventing New York State hunters from using rifles chambered for pistol cartridges in shotgun only New York State hunting zones;
WHEREAS, New York State hunters are required to use shotgun slugs with increased recoil and decreased accuracy to hunt big game in many hunting zones in New York State;
WHEREAS, New York State hunters are required to purchase more costly shotgun slugs to hunt big game in many hunting zones in New York State;
WHEREAS, younger and smaller New York State hunters are deterred from participating in big game hunting because they are prohibited from using rifles chambered for pistol cartridges which are easier for smaller or younger hunters to handle. Lower recoil levels in rifles chambered for pistol cartridges versus shotguns would enable younger and smaller hunters to participate and become proficient by increased practice and lower cost ammunition.
WHEREAS, using rifles chambered for pistol cartridges in big game hunting in expanded areas of New York State would attract more sportsmen to big game hunting, New York State firearm dealers would gain revenue;
WHEREAS, increased sales of pistol cartridges to hunters that are attracted to big game hunting by the ability to use implements that fit their physical stature would lead to increased excise tax funds available for wildlife research and conservation efforts;
WHEREAS, the flexibility to chose a hunting implement that fits the physical and marksmanship abilities of the individual hunter would increase the number of licensed hunters in New York State;
WHEREAS, the use of rifles chambered for pistol cartridges for big game hunting is allowed in sister states that have established case length restrictions to preclude the use of cartridges with lower power and cartridges with higher velocities, New York State hunters are prohibited from practicing hunting for big game with rifles chambered for pistol cartridges and preparing for a safe hunt in these states;
WHEREAS, under this resolution rifles that would be considered legal must fire a cartridge with a bullet of .357 inch diameter or larger; have a minimum case length of 1.16 inches and a maximum case length of 1.625 inches. These rifles can used only during the deer firearms season. These restrictions preclude the use of cartridges with lower power and also cartridges with higher velocities normally found in what are consider "high power" hunting rifles legal in only portions of NY State.
The following cartridges are examples of those considered legal under this resolution:
.357 Mangum
.41 Magnum
.41 Special
.44Magnum
.44 Special
.44-40 Winchester
.45 Colt
.454 Casull
.458 SOCOM
.460 S&W
.480 Ruger
.475 Linebaugh
.50 Action Express
.500 S&W


THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: that the NYS Conservation Council shall support and seek to amend the big game hunting laws to allow the use of rifles chambered for pistol cartridges for big game hunting in expanded areas of New York State.

Contact:
Kurt Schuler (Member of the Wilson Conservation Club) 3285 Coomer Road
Newfane, NY 14108 716-778-4603

Big Game Committee: Support: - vote: 6 support, 2 oppose, 2 abstentions.
Comments: Big Game Committee concluded this resolution from a Big Game standpoint is supportable, through the vote of 6 For, 2 Opposed, with 2 abstentions. Although no significant issues arose in opposition to this resolution, we believe it would be wise to also defer to the Firearms Committee for additional input, as this is an issue concerning firearms more so than Big Game hunting.

Recommendation: SUPPORT, based upon Firearms Committee recommendations

Legislation Committee : No Position - vote: none
Comment:
• Feel bill would be too confusing for Legislators
• Suggest pursuit of rifle use in Niagara County


Firearms & Ammunition Committee: Oppose
Committee feels that this resolution should be rejected.

1. The resolution repeatedly refers to “pistol cartridges.” While many cartridges are primarily used in pistols, there are no cartridges that are used exclusively for pistol ammunition. This proposal is evidence of that. Shooting and sportsmen’s’ organizations, including the NYSCC, are continually at pains to clarify this fact to legislators who introduce legislation intended to restrict access to “pistol ammunition” to holders pistol licenses. To request the NYSCC to lobby for legislation allowing for the use of pistol cartridges for big game hunting will be contrary to the NYSCC position and undermine ongoing efforts.

2. The definition provided is too complex for practical codification or enforcement. The proposal wishes to define the legal cartridges by a range of case lengths measured to the .001 of an inch. This not practical in a real world situation. ECO’s cannot be expected to carry calipers to verify case lengths. This difficulty is demonstrated by the fact that the authors include in their list of examples a cartridge not legal by the proposed definition ((.460 S&W has a case length of 1.8”).

3. The authors reference other states but provide no specific reference. Other states have different regulations that fit their specific geographic, population and hunter density conditions. They are not necessarily applicable to New York. New York hunters who wish to practice for hunting in other states can do so on shooting ranges. Changing NY hunting regulations to provide practice for other states is not a sound practice.

4. We are unconvinced that the recoil of shotguns legal under currently regulations is excessive for young or small-statured hunters. Shooters twelve (and in other states, younger) fire hundreds of 12 And 20 gauge shells a day in competitive events.

5 A more appropriate path would be to pursue the authorization of rifle hunting in the desired counties. This is certain to be considered a home rule issue and a request from the county legislature.

Subject: Conservation Fund Protection

10-11 Monroe County


State Conservation Fund Utilization
Whereas, there are more than 1.4 million resident sportsmen in the state of New York and
Whereas, the Conservation Fund, through the receipt of license fees, is the primary funding mechanism to support wildlife management in New York and
Whereas, revenue generated from hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation directly support wildlife conservation programs and provide substantial economic benefits to the New York economy, contributing more than $6billion to the state’s economy annually and
Whereas, New York State significantly increased sportsmen license fees in 2009 to generate additional revenue sales to cover fish and wildlife management and law enforcement support through the Conservation Fund and
Whereas, staff reductions and budget cuts at DEC are threatening the continued operations of fish stocking and other wildlife management programs and
Whereas, state budget shortfalls projected at greater than $42billion over the next 3 years have raised questions over the state’s continued commitment and support of wildlife management programs
BE IT RESOLVED that the New York Conservation Council, in support of New York sportsmen and outdoors-related economic interests, secure a commitment from the state legislature and Governor’s office that Conservation Funds be utilized for wildlife management programs only, not state debt relief, and that the state continue to provide adequate investment in its wildlife management programs for the enjoyment of its citizens and economic benefit to the state.
Contact Monroe County Conservation Council President, Dick Habes

Legislative Committee: Oppose – vote: 1 in favor – 4 oppose
Comments
• A law already exist to cover the intent of this resolution to protect the Conservation Fund money.
• Council President in committee has stated that a violation or going against the protection of the conservation fund would generate legal action.

Big Game Committee: Support - vote: 10 support – 0 oppose
Comments: Big Game Committee agreed it is of the utmost importance to protect the Conservation Fund. By vote of the Big Game Committee, we support this resolution with a unanimous 10-0 tally.

Small Game Committee: Support
Recommended that Monroe County resubmit the resolution to address the missing language in the resolution before the fall meeting.

Archery and Bowhunting Committee: Support - vote: 9 support – 0 oppose
Recent comments by politicians that the Conservation Fund was available to be “swept”
for other uses have brought this issue to the forefront. There are also reports that these
funds are not being released to wildlife programs. The archery committee was in full
agreement with the Conservation Funds being used only for fish and wildlife. Keeping a
close eye on funds is very important to sportsmen. Committee voted unanimous in favor.

Conservation Education Committee: Support
Committee support for this resolution unanimously. This resolution resolves to have the NYSCC support Sportsmen interests and secure a commitment from the state legislature and Governor that the Conservation Funds be utilized for wildlife management programs and not of state debt relief. Putting these funds matching Pittman Robertson funds in jeopardy.

Fish, Marine District, Environment Committee:

Fur Resources Committee: Oppose
We agree with it in premise but voted in opposition to the resolution because of wording.

In one of the Whereas; they state the recent license increase was to support law enforcement, and that is simply not true. I was present at the meetings of CFAB, and law enforcement support was not a part of the fee increase.

Also in the Whereas ; the way the resolution is written, it seems as though only wildlife programs would be protected. With modification (adding Fish), the FR Committee would support this resolution.


Habitat/Access & Forest Preserve & Public Lands Committee: Support
voted 8 in support; 1 opposed with a minor revision necessary – to replace all references to “wildlife” with “fish and wildlife”. Dick Habes, author of the resolution will make the appropriate revision.


Waterfowl Committee: - see comments
According to NYS Finance Law (Art. 83), DEC can legally take money from the Conservation Fund for the purpose of fulfilling member item obligations. The question raised is, “Will the dollars have to be replaced?”

One member feels that the resolution uses bad language, i.e. “secure a commitment.” Why “open up a can of worms” by reminding the legislature that we have a dedicated fund?

Nothing in the above quoted law says that no one other than DEC can spend those funds.

We support the intent of the resolution, but what is the next step? There is not a law or change or a regulation mentioned. Is the Council going to get some ball rolling or is it the responsibility of Monroe Co. to do it?

The committee supports “the intent” 3-0, but would like to see it rewritten with more specifics.