SCOPE President's Speech Wows Albany Crowd

Last week, Steve Aldstadt, president of The Shooters Committee On Political Education (SCOPE), was the keynote speaker at the Sportsmen's Awareness Day in Albany. What he had to say impressed many. I thought it prudent to share it with readers, many of whom are sportsmen and women concerned about the almost constant efforts to infringe on their Second Amendment rights.
“I am Stephen Aldstadt, president of SCOPE, The Shooters Committee On Political Education. I’m glad you all joined us today to help educate our legislators on the meaning, the purpose, and the importance of preserving our right to Keep and Bear Arms here in New York.
A little history lesson is in order here if you will indulge me for just a few minutes.
Unlike any other nation, the United States was conceived on the notion that the power comes from the people and is granted to the government who are bound to work in the interest and by the consent of the governed. To that end, the founding fathers crafted a document; The Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution laid out a foundation for a government with limited powers. It spelled out exactly what powers were to be granted to the federal government, by the people.
The people looked at the framework, the constitution, and said this is good, but it is not enough. What recourse is there in the event that the government goes beyond the constitution and begins to usurp powers that are not granted to them? Another document was needed, a document that more clearly defined the limits of governmental power, a document that clearly defined and recognized the inalienable rights of the people. And so the Bill of Rights was crafted and the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted.
They were crafted and listed in order of importance
The First Amendment reads as follows;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
But what if the government does not abide by the law? What if it does in fact abridge our speech, our press, our religion? What if the government forbids us from peaceable assembly and will hear no grievances? What guarantee is there that the power will remain in the hands of the people, that they will remain free men and not be ruled without their consent?
That’s why we have rule number 2, the Second Amendment:
A well regulated militia (All able-bodied citizens, well trained and possessing their own arms and ammunition) Being necessary to the security of a FREE state (A free state where individual citizens live with liberty)
The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
This document does not grant the right of people to own a gun, it recognizes that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and declares that that right shall not be infringed upon.
At one time there were many who tried to argue that this right is not an individual right, they concocted a “collective rights” theory and tried tell us that the second amendment did not recognize a right of the people but instead granted a power to the state governments.
This argument was put to rest once and for all by the United States Supreme Court in the DC vs. Heller decision.
They also tried to tell us that the second amendment applied only to the federal government and was not incorporated to the states. They tried to tell us that the states had to respect our first amendment rights, our forth amendments right to be secure in persons against unreasonable search, our fifth amendment rights to a fair trial, our sixth, seventh. They tried to tell us that the Second Amendment was different, that it was somehow the only one that state government could completely ignore.
In fact Justice Sonya Sotomayor ruled exactly that in the appellate court here in New York.
However the United States supreme court ruled differently in the McDonald vs. Chicago decision just last year.
Now for the first time in recent memory we have ruling from the highest court in the land that states unequivocally that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says; The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed!
Again I want to thank you all for coming together with us today to exercise these rights, for joining our peaceable assembly to speak out and petition our government for redress of grievances. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we; the gun owners and sportsmen of New York State have a few grievances.
We are tired of constantly having our rights restricted, taxed, licensed, and denied. We are tired of being treated like criminals and blamed for all of society’s troubles while the real criminals are set loose on the streets again and again to prey on honest peaceable citizens.
We are here to say enough! We will support our legislators and our law enforcement officials in enacting and enforcing laws that target real criminals and violent criminal behavior. We do not give our consent to be scapegoated for political expediency. We are free citizens of the republic and we do not give our consent to be disarmed and treated as subjects of an all powerful government. “

I have a question for the Honorable Sheldon Silver; Mr. Speaker, What part of “Shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?”

Will DEC budget cuts actually worsen our huge state deficit?

If the term “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” ever applied to a situation, it certainly should be applicable to what’s occurring in our “buried-in-red-ink” State of New York right now. It’s unfortunate that it took the closing of Rogers Center (among others) to awaken many of us to just how far our state government is willing to go in its desperate attempt to repair the overspending and irresponsible fiscal policies and decisions that have basically bankrupted our state and negatively impacted so many of its residents.
Last week, I reported the glaring imbalance that saw the NYSDEC being hit with a disproportionate percentage of budget cut actions as compared to cuts that would affect those of other state departments. Hit especially hard were those in the fish, wildlife and marine resources. For example, 75 percent of DEC budget comes from other sources of funding distinct from the General Fund, primarily being from the Conservation Fund, a supposedly dedicated fund fed by sporting license sales and special sales taxes on certain sporting goods. And while only 2 percent of the State General Fund employees work at DEC, the DEC is being hammered by 16 percent of the state's layoffs, so far, with probably more to come.
It should be noted that the layoffs, freezes and cuts, including those funded by the Conservation Fund, are reportedly being determined and carried out by the Division of Budget. Interestingly, the section of New York State law that established the Conservation Fund proscribes the government from appropriating the dollars for given purposes and then freezing those dollars as the Executive Div. of the Budget [DOB] has recently done. It is a potential disaster for New York’s outdooractivitiess and all conservation in general if this glaring breech of state law is allowed without opposition. Such a breech might also cost the state many thousands of federal dollars that are annually determined primarily by the amounts flowing into the NYS Conservation Fund and whether those funds are being used as prescribed by the law to qualify for the funding. At a time when the State should be bolstering the DEC, which is facing major challenges regarding a developing the ongoing moratorium on natural gas drilling and mining, in addition to the many conservation management programs under its charge, instead we see it being gutted by layoffs, closings, early retirements and declining morale due to uncertainly. If it was a hospital patient, the DEC would likely now be on life support, and probably has been for several years now. The question is: will it or can it ever recover? If recent actions in Albany are any indication, the answer is no.
Eric Kriss, spokesman for Paterson's Budget Division (DOB), said every part of state government has to cut back as the state endures "the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression." Okay, Mr. Kriss, does “every part” of our state government include the perks, salaries and benefits of our elected or appointed and top-level officials, who gladly vote themselves a raise at the drop of a hat? While sportsmen's groups contend the Conservation Fund is a "locked box" required by law to be used only for fish and wildlife programs, Kriss claimed that's not the case. "We would not have to change environmental conservation law to use Conservation Fund money for purposes other than what they're used for now," Kriss said, perhaps hinting that might happen soon, if not already. .. However, he said it's too early to say whether fish stocking or other specific programs will be reduced (Oh really? DEC has already admitted fisheries stocking programs will be reduced Read more below). (Note: Kriss has since revised his statement)
The price of a fishing license was raised from $19 to $29 last year to bolster the Conservation Fund, which pays for fish and wildlife programs, including fisheries. Recommended staffing level in the state's fish hatchery system is 80, but early retirement incentives and unfilled vacancies have brought staffing down to 67. Jason Kemper, chairman of the state's Conservation Fund Advisory Council, told an Assembly hearing earlier this month that staffing is insufficient to maintain (fish) production at current levels. Fishing alone brings in an estimated $1.6 billion a year to our state economy and much of that goes into the General Fund. Add the spending generated by hunting, trapping and other NYSDEC managed programs, and we’re talking about extremely large bundles of cash that, at the rate the DEC services and programs are being cut, will probably put the state even deeper in the red in the coming years.
Howard Cushing, president of the New York State Conservation Council, which represents more than 300,000 hunters and anglers, wrote on the council's website that the group would file a lawsuit if necessary to prevent Conservation Fund money from being reallocated to help close a state budget gap.
The Conservation Fund currently has, or did have, a surplus of about $17 million, yet staffing levels are lower and allocations for gasoline and other expenses are too low to allow remaining staff to do their jobs effectively. And it appears the DOB seems eager to get its hands on that money, one way or another.
The Department of Environmental Conservation stands to lose another 140 jobs as part of Paterson's plan to lay off about 900 state workers by year's end. Previous cutbacks had reduced the DEC's work force by about 860 since 2008.
Gov. Paterson called a special session of the Legislature on Monday to address budget issues and other matters. I hope the “other matters” doesn’t involve raiding our Conservation Fund. During my life I’ve willingly given thousands of my after-tax dollars in the form of sporting licenses and special sporting goods sales taxes, believing they were being used to support, maintain and conserve the many outdoor activities dear to my heart. Now I can only wonder what they were actually used for, especially since the NYSDEC was created by none other than the people I entrusted them with?

The Grannis firing indicative of Albany’s DEC priorities

As many of you know from reading my columns, I’ve never been a fan of the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, and that opinion dates back to 1972, when it was spawned to replace the NYS Conservation Dept. Although I’ve voiced my reasons in past columns, what occurred last week, with the firing of its commissioner, Pete Grannis, typified one of my primary reasons.
Grannis, a NYC Democrat, was appointed to run DEC by former Gov. Eliot Spitzer in 2007. Prior to that, Grannis served as a member of the Assembly representing the Upper East Side of Manhattan and Roosevelt Island for more than 30 years. He also served in the early 1970's as a Compliance Counsel for DEC. Grannis wasn’t Spitzer’s first choice for the DEC’s top position and also came under fire by the state’s sportsmen groups, who felt his urban background didn’t qualify him for the position.
However, once Grannis took over, his efforts to support conservation programs and projects, as well as environmental ones, gradually began winning over his detractors. Under Grannis, the pheasant program was salvaged, the minimum age for youths to hunt big game was lowered, and a new NYS salt water fishing license was created (none existed before, unlike fresh water fishing). Despite his urban background, he seemed to take his position seriously and listened to what sportsmen and his fish and wildlife staff professionals suggested. He was also a three-time winner of the Legislator of the Year award from the Environmental Planning Lobby and was accorded similar honors by the Audubon Society, the Environmental Action Coalition and Environmental Advocates.
Sounds like he was doing a fine job, right? Well, in Albany politics, it’s their way or the highway, especially for appointees. The turning point in Grannis’ commissionership began when the state’s fiscal well being began to become increasingly troubled, and agency budgets began being pared and shuffled by the NYS Dept. of Budget’s “rob Peter to pay Paul” approach, which had worked in previous fiscal years, but the impact of the national recession, made even worse by New York’s failing economy, began to blow away the smoke-and-mirrors budget manipulating, revealing just how bad the state’s fiscal health was.
As many of us had warned in the early ‘70s, the creation of such a vast bureaucracy as the DEC would be would eventually stretch its ability to function effectively if sudden economic or environmental changes occurred. After all, when you place conservation, the environment, and all that fall under these categories under one bureaucratic roof and budget, you’re asking for trouble. You’d end up with all the various divisions fighting for survival.
The divisions that were responsible for conservation often bumped heads with those charged with environmental issues. Funding and personnel were often saddled with multiple tasking, and increasingly more regulations were created, adding to the work and budget loads. Grannis was apparently getting increasingly frustrated to see his DEC being steadily pared and shrunken by the Albany powers, led by the Paterson administration. Then last Tuesday an unsigned, undated memo was leaked to the news media that warned that “fewer polluted sites would be cleaned up, fewer regulators would be available to oversee the potential natural gas drilling boom in the Marcellus Shale, and stocking of game fish could halt. In order to avoid cuts to programs that protect human health or address immediate environmental damage, the memo suggests the most logical places for deep cuts would be outdoor recreation and sports including skiing, fishing, hunting, camping and hiking. Many of our programs are hanging by a thread. The public would be shocked to learn how thin we are in many areas,” the memo stated. “DEC is in the weakest position that it has been since it was created 40 years ago.”
Grannis protested that the memo was not leaked with his knowledge and later said that apparently facts don’t sit well with this administration. On Wednesday the governor demanded his resignation over the memo becoming public. Peter Iwanowicz, a Democrat from Albany and Deputy Secretary for the Environment, will be responsible for representing the Governor on a range of environmental policy matters, including climate change, natural resource protection, and clean air and water. Prior to that he served as Director of the Climate Change Office. Note, no where is the term “conservation” used.
Almost anything can be considered to fall under the environmental umbrella, and as New York’s political power has increasingly been taken over by downstate politicians and appointees, all with an eye on votes from large urban areas, the priorities given to conservation have increasingly given way to those of environmental. Since conservation issues important to many upstate residents are being bypassed in favor of general environmental ones, programs involving fish, wildlife, forest management, etc. will take a backseat until the state’s fiscal woes subside, whenever that may be.
To those of us who questioned the wisdom of creating a mega agency such as DEC is, it now seems that our worst fears are being realized, and Pete Grannis’ dismissal last week proved that basically anyone who questions the reasons our Albany leaders place higher priorities on some divisions at the expense of others may be in jeopardy of getting a pink slip. Now, license-buying sportsmen can truly ask: “Is the increased license monies being spent on appropriate conservation projects, or are they supporting general environmental programs?” Apparently, that’s a question even a DEC commissioner shouldn’t ask.

The media's error-filled assault on 'assault weapons'

By Bob McNitt

Each time I read or hear the general media referring to "assault firearms," I cringe. Why? Because many of them have little or no idea of what they're talking about. The term "assault weapon" is an arbitrary (and politicized) phrase used all too often by the media to describe a collection of semi-automatic firearms that outwardly only "appear similar" to those used by the military but are not alike in actuality.
On April 18, 2007 in an interview, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY), sponsor of the bill "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007" spoke on the Virginia Tech massacre and her proposed reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban. Asked to explain the need to regulate barrel shrouds, one of the many provisions of the Act, she responded that more importantly the legislation would ban large capacity "clips" used in the Virginia Tech massacre and that the class of guns chosen were those used by gangs and police killers. However, she apparently either never learned the facts or else was highly uninformed about the very firearms she was trying to ban.
The Virginia Tech shooter did not have high capacity magazines. They were of the legal, 10-round variety. After admitting that she did not know what a barrel shroud was, an item which she was so adamant to see banned, McCarthy ventured a guess, "I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up". Actually a barrel shroud is a ventilated covering attached to the barrel of a firearm that partially or completely encircles the barrel, preventing burns when the barrel gets hot from rapid or fully automatic firing.
The misleading phrase "assault weapons" has been used primarily in relation to a specific expired gun law that was commonly known as the "Assault Weapons Ban", "Clinton gun ban", or "1994 crime bill." On March 2, 2004, following the bill's sunset date, it was voted down 8-90. It's worthwhile to note that The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban as well as other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
It is a common misconception that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as true assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons were unaffected by the ban, although they have been primarily banned and heavily restricted by permit since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Most of these firearms being described as "assault weapons" have physical appearances similar to their military look-alikes, but there the similarity ends.
Some may have certain features, such as a folding or pistol-grip stock, barrel shroud, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of a capacity larger than ten rounds. The term "assault weapon" has often been erroneously compared to machinegun-like rifles, which are illegal to own or buy without a special Federal permit. Many states and localities still carelessly use the term assault weapon with a variety of variations because the firearm "looks" like a military model. But in truth, they are functionally and basically the same as the popular but "more traditional looking" firearms used by hunters and target shooters.
The glaring difference that separates a true assault firearm from those being called assault firearms is an assault firearm is truly fully automatic, meaning it fires much like a machinegun, spewing out bullets in rapid succession as long as the trigger is held down. Semi automatics require the trigger be pulled to fire each individual shot, one at a time. Those being mistakenly lumped with true fully automatic firearms is like saying VW Beatles race in the Daytona 500.
The history of popular hunting rifles and their origins -- from the WWI 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle to today's AR-platform rifles -- illustrates how for more than 100 years rifles used by the military that possess battlefield requirements of accuracy, ruggedness and reliability became, understandably, popular civilian sporting rifles. Thus, today's AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are just another step in the evolution of the tools hunters and target shooters use to enjoy their activities. None are fully automatic, meaning that a single round is fired each time the trigger is pulled, just like all repeating guns currently in use by civilians.
In the 1860s the Henry Rifle used the lever-action and the new cartridge technology to allow highly accurate, powerful, rapid-firing guns. The Henry gave birth to the 1873 Winchester, "the gun that won the West." Lever actions then became very popular with civilian shooters and hunters and have remained popular ever since. Then in WWII and the Korean War the M-1 Garand military semi-auto spawned several models of semi-automatic civilian sporting rifles. The Vietnam War saw the emergence of the M14, AK-47, M16 and subsequent M-16 series, which are the forerunners of the civilian "AR-15 type" semi-auto designed rifles now being mistakenly called "assault rifles," but which are increasingly becoming popular as hunting and target shooting tools.
When I see the media and many politicians feeding the public such incorrect and erroneous information, it makes me wonder just how reliable the rest of what they tell us is? I'm also reminded of a classic Mark Twain (aka Samuel Clemens) quote: "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
How easily can misinformation or incorrect information to a news-dependent public result in asinine new laws passed by politicians? In Great Britain, the news media did such a disservice that a ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre. The use of handguns in crime rose by 40 per cent in the two years after the weapons were banned. Now there's a movement to ban knives because Murders and other homicides involving knives are up 10 per cent, and attempted murders up 8 per cent on top of a huge increase in knife robberies. Boy Scouts in the UK may be banned from carrying knives as the law on carrying knives in public is so ambiguous.
It's a good thing the media doesn't turn its attention to the number of erroneous stories and misinformation that are often reported by some. That might just put many of them right next to the tabloids in super markets.

DEC's "New" Videos Carefully Avoid Hunting

The Top Brass in the Department of Environmental Conservation can certainly talk the talk, but when do they ever walk the walk? Case in point is the new Web TV which only has one segment out of 63 that is about hunting. That's less than 2%.

All the hollow claims out of Albany (or maybe New York City?) that the DEC was promoting hunting and trying to entice more youths into the sportsmen/women folds certainly isn't evident in the playlist being trotted out on the DEC web site. It bothers me to no end that increasingly, the DEC seems to be telling hunters "give us your money, but don't expect us to use it to improve game/wildlife habitat. Fishing and non-consumptive outdoor activities are more important."

Does Any Politician From Downstate Have a Clue?

I'll make this short and sweet ... are there two entirely different New Yorks, one north of Westchester County and one south of it? It certainly seems increasingly so. I'm not especially referring to the fact that one tends to be more rural or suburban while the other is mega-urban. What I am pointing out is the vast differences in attitudes that affect the entire state, not just one or the other. Now, the majority of the entire state being run by downstate, apparently those of us residing north and west of Westchester no longer are expected to have a voice in the state politics.

The current bevy of gun control bills being ushered through the legislature has become the poster boy for this separation of power. The package of gun control bills (aka "the Terrible Thirteen") were almost entirely spawned by downstate politicians who seemingly based their thinking on what's good for mega-urban areas is good for every area. Even the terminology in some of the bills show how little they understand the very subject their bill is targeting. Take for example the micro stamping bill which would require every semi-auto handgun to have a firing pin that would leave a distinctive mark on every shell casing fired from it. Experts simply say this is impractical and ineffective, and has never been a successful tool in solving gun-related crimes but would only increased the production cost immeasureably. Crooks would only need to remove the pin marking from their gun, or else use a revolver that leaves no spent casings.

New York already has the most strict firearms laws in the nation, few of which have stopped some street crook, druggie or gang member from getting illegal guns on the black market and using them in their crimminal pursuits. Adding more won't stop that, but it will certainly raise hell with law-abiding citizens all over the state.

DHS's Report Profiles Potential Domestic Terrorists

In a report released on April 7, 2009, the Dept. of Homeland Security gave a rather detailed profile of what it apparently may now consider falling under the heading of "potential domestic terrorists." Even to the casual reader, the wording could be construed to include tens of millions of otherwise law-abiding patriotic American citizens. You may get the impression that the government is actually becoming fearful of the very citizens it is sworn to represent and protect. Here are some of the more questionable clauses from the document.

"The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence"

Read The Entire DHS Report

The rise and fall of wildlife habitat and hunting in NYS

By Bob McNitt

It seems New Year's is often a time that many of us reflect on events of the past year and sometimes beyond. After all, history is the yard-stick reminder of where we've been, where we currently are, and where we might be heading. As a sportsmen and outdoor enthusiast, I tend to reminisce about the many changes that have occurred in our outdoor environment, and especially as they relate to wildlife, habitat and hunting opportunities, all of which have gone through major changes over the years. So I've pieced together a short overview of these from 1900 to the present.

1900-1930
The height of agriculture in the state as an abundance of small farms were present throughout New York, with the exception of the Adirondacks' rugged lands. There was an abundance of small game on the farmlands, with rabbit, squirrel and grouse being the most common. Deer were primarily confined to the Adirondacks.
1930-1940
These were the heydays of small game and upland hunting in the state. Thanks to the wonderful habitat created by the checkerboard maze of small family-run farms, species such as cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, ruffed grouse, woodcock and pheasant were abundant, widespread and readily accessible. Deer were just beginning to show up in many areas of the state, having spread from their previous ranges in the Adirondacks and Pennsylvania.
1940-1950
Small game, and especially upland species such as grouse, pheasant and rabbit were still in abundance and widespread. However, deer were becoming more plentiful and widespread. Snowshoe rabbits (varying hare) were extremely plentiful in the numerous state forest plantations planted by the old Civilian Conservation Corps of the post-Depression era. A new predator, nicknamed the "brush wolf" (or "coydog") was expanding in the northern half of the state. It was to eventually be officially called the "Eastern Coyote."
1950-1970
Perhaps the best era for hunting in the state since all game species, both big and small, were in relative abundance, as well as widespread access was available in most agricultural areas. Large numbers of pheasants were being reared and released by both the State and private organizations such as sportsmen clubs and the 4-H. Deer had become so common the state held a special "Doe Day" on the last day of the regular deer season in many areas of the state. Farming technique changes began to negatively impact the once numerous family-run small farms, and an expansion of rural residential and commercial developments began to appear on the abandoned farmlands
1970-1990
In 1971 the NYS Conservation Department was replace by a much larger and complex agency called the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), which would be responsible for managing all aspects of the environment in addition to natural resources. It would be funded by the General Fund, but the money from all sporting license sales and appropriate gear taxes (Pittman-Robertson and Dingall-Johnson Acts) would be in a special Conservation Fund, dedicated to natural resources development and management. Thanks to the abandonment of farmland, emerging growth provided the perfect habitat for deer, whose numbers rapidly climbed during this period. A new Wild Turkey Restoration Program was also proving highly successful, and turkey hunting was just beginning to catch on. Conversely, pheasant, rabbit and hare numbers began to decrease as the once numerous low-growth habitat on abandoned farmlands grew and matured. This was also especially true in the state forest evergreen plantations as the dense maturing trees blocked sunlight from reaching ground-level flora.
1990-Present
Rapid residential and commercial development spread rapidly throughout the state, replacing natural habitat and creating abundant fringe areas that deer found attractive. The result was a steady change in where deer densities were the highest, moving from woodlands and farmlands to developed areas where hunting was either impractical or prohibited. Changes in land ownership philosophies also resulted in a decrease in private land accessible to hunters. This, along with a decline in small game numbers, especially upland species, caused overall hunter numbers to decline. However, deer and turkey hunting remained strong for several years after the decline began.
After years of refusal, the legislature finally lowered the minimum age to hunt big game to 14. This resulted in a spike in licenses and hunters, as an additional 15,000 young hunters joined the hunting fraternity. But the ink was barely dry on the new law when Governor Paterson announced that by executive decision he was closing the state's lone remaining pheasant farm (Reynolds, near Ithaca) and doing away with the entire state pheasant program as a budget cutting measure, despite the entire program being paid from sporting license money.
The Future
With the state facing a huge budget deficit, the axing of the pheasant program (despite it shearing basically nothing off the budget deficit) is a rather strong indication of the budget-cutting priorities of the current administration, which is very "environmentally oriented." Also, the amount of attention given to wildlife habitat management and improvement by the DEC has steadily been declining for many years. As such I fully expect the biggest losers in the budget trimming will involve fish, wildlife and habitat programs. Not a very rosy picture for hunting or the sportsmen/women and other outdoor enthusiasts of New York.

The news that wild boars (feral pigs) are showing up in southern portions of New York, apparently filtering in from preserve escapees in northern Pennsylvania, has been met, at least by me, with mixed emotions. Why? Because a huntable population of them could give us year-round big game hunting opportunies. But the downside would be the damages they would inflict on our native species habitat - a negative that's been well documented in southern states where the pigs are overly numerous. If we could keep them under control via four-season hunting, it would certainly add some spice to the seasons when our regular game seasons are closed, such as late winter or summer. Meantime, all we can do is wait and see what develops.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog page. Enjoy the communication value it reprsesents and use it as often as you wish. Bob