July 2, 2020

Another State Clamoring to “Manage” Bears With Bait Hunting

While Maine deals with the lies perpetuated by the likes of extreme human-hating groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), to ban bear hunting with bait, trapping and hound hunting, Massachusetts joins New York in proposing to lift the bans on bear baiting because……wait for it…..here it comes……there’s too many bears in conflict with humans. Have we heard that before somewhere?

From the Telegram.com:

“Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) Executive Director Jim Wallace does a great job regularly updating sportsmen about important legislation. He recently noted that H.809 — An Act Relative to the Hunting of Bear, filed by Rep. Todd Smola, would repeal the prohibition on the use of bait and hounds for hunting bear. This law was the result of the infamous 1996 referendum Question 1. As bear populations continue to increase and begin to spread beyond the traditional rural settings, it is essential that the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife be allowed to manage them. The most effective population management tool is hunting, and baiting bear is the most effective means in fairly urban areas. Baiting allows the hunter to harvest the bear in a safe and controlled manner.”

Share

New Yorkers Push Back Against SAFE Act, Burn Gun Reg. Forms

Authoritarians in the Northeast exploited the media hype surrounding Sandy Hook to crack down hard on the right to bear arms. But patriots are fighting back: first in Connecticut, where citizens by the tens of thousands have refused to register their guns; and now in the very heart of liberal tyranny, Andrew Cuomo’s New York itself:<<<Read More>>>

Share

Police SWAT Team to Bait and Kill Deer

According to Grand View Outdoors, one town in Western New York is going to use SWAT Team members to bait and kill surplus deer that the town has determined to be causing property damage and a danger to motorists. Isn’t there a better way?

When there are people, hunters, willing to do this for free, why utilize a SWAT Team? Why pay “sharpshooters?” In addition, the more and more we hear about these problems of just too many deer, has anyone considered reimplementing market hunting in some areas?

While the meat will be donated to the food bank, it just seems a waste that hunters/volunteers can’t do the job and keep one deer for themselves and family, if they wish, and pass the rest on to food banks.

Got ideas on this? Tell me about it in the comment section.

Share

New York Proposes Bear Trapping, Baiting and Hounding to Reduce Bear Populations

Under a proposed plan, New York would become the second state in the nation where it is legal to trap a bear, after Maine. The new rules also would allow for the use of dogs and bait to attract bears during hunting, both of which are now illegal. The state will increase the hunting season in the Catskills to reduce the bear population there and allow for killing of females and bears younger than a year in other regions. State officials will also promote bear hunting as a cost-effective way to reduce the population.<<<Read More>>>

Share

GASP! New York Considering Adding Bear Baiting, Hounding and Trapping

When a reader sent me a link to a blog post by Bangor Daily News’ John Holyoke, I saw the headline and figured it must be a joke. – “New York considering allowing baiting, trapping, hounding bears.” Aside from the bit of bear drool offered toward the end of Holyoke’s piece, he aptly points out that while Maine is in the throes of another citizen’s referendum to end bear baiting, trapping and hounding as management tools for the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), the state of New York, in their Draft Black Bear Management Plan for New York State, 2014-2024, is contemplating the need to begin implementation of bear baiting, bear trapping and bear hounding in order to achieve necessary tools to control bear populations.

Maine wildlife managers, as well as sportsmen, have argued for years that those tools are needed, and then something else more creative, to properly manage black bears. Now it appears that wildlife managers in New York are asking that bans be lifted to make available baiting, trapping and hounding of bears.

Now, as additional bear harvest is necessary to achieve the modest population reduction desired in the central and southern Catskills and to prevent population growth throughout currently unhunted portions of upstate New York, DEC must incorporate new mechanisms to increase participation in bear hunting and increase bear harvest rates. Accordingly, this plan calls for expansion of bear
hunting into all areas of upstate New York, a supplemental hunting season in the Catskill region, and
assessment of existing regulations and statutes that limit bear management capacity. For example, regulations that prohibit the taking of a bear from a group of bears and statutory prohibitions on taking bears less than one year old in the Southern Zone afford protection to female and young bears. These prohibitions were effective strategies when population growth was desired, though they are no longer necessary and may be impeding management in some areas. Additionally, close regulation of alternative harvest techniques such as use of bait, pursuit with hounds, trapping or spring hunts could provide additional management tools and would likely generate substantial interest in New York bear hunting among resident and non-resident hunters. Though not currently lawful in New York, these techniques are used successfully in many areas throughout North America (Hristienko and McDonald 2007)and should be assessed for management value in New York. (emphasis added)

I will not be so bold as Mr. Holyoke to predict that if the Humane Society of the United States is successful in banning baiting, trapping and hounding of bears, that an overgrown population of bears, “aren’t going to eat you,” I will offer a prediction that it will be a cold day in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, deep in the heart of the Empire State’s Gotham City, when New York implements any or all of the suggested methods of controlling black bear populations in the Draft Bear Plan.

However, it should be noted that it is the wildlife managers in New York saying they can’t healthfully manage the state’s black bears without the necessary tools to do it. In Maine, as the rhetoric blows up and people become emotionally intoxicated over bears, the notion that MDIFW will lose the necessary and proven successful tools to control bear populations, gets booed and hissed at, as though it was some kind of far fetched lie.

I’m sure the animal lovers and protectors in New York thought their “science” was settled when laws were passed banning baiting, trapping and hounding. Now is the time for someone….anyone? to step up and say, “We told you so.”

BearStronger

Share

In New York, the Nanny State Marches On

Public Smoking AND Quitting Smoking Now Both to be Outlawed in the Big Apple?

New York to Vote on Banning Public Use of Device that Helps Smokers Quit

The Nanny State Marches On

New York, NY – This week, the New York City Council is expected to vote on a bill that would ban the use of e-cigarettes where cigarette smoking is banned. In an op-ed in today’s New York Post, “Bloomberg’s E-Cig Ban Likely to do More Harm than Good,” the National Center for Public Policy Research warns city council members that not only will the bill not have the desired effect, it could do harm.

“The key idea is that e-cigs somehow facilitate tobacco smoking – but the best evidence suggests the reverse, that they’re mainly useful for (and used by) people trying to quit. So the ban is likely to do harm, not good,” writes National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Jeff Stier, the author of the op-ed.

Earlier this month, Stier testified at the City Council health committee where the issue was debated

Stier testified:

I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.

“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.” “Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”

Stier’s op-ed, available here, also provides responses various charges by e-cig ban supporters.

“…Ban fans suggest it’s just the prudent thing to do until we have more data,” concludes Stier in the op-ed. “No, the prudent thing to do is to help smokers trying to quit.”

Stier’s testimony before the New York City Council’s health committee can be viewed on YouTube here.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

The Nanny State Can Get You Killed

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit

New York, NY – On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.

In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact “prudent” to extend New York City’s ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:

“I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.”

E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.

“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.”

“Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”

“Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. ”

“Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way,” Stier says.

“Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a ‘gateway’ to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there’s little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic.”

Stier concludes: “Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative.”

Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed “Nanny Bloomberg” by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.

Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Not All New Yorkers are Robotic Sheep

Earlier this year when the fascist of the state of New York enacted the SAFE Act to essentially outlaw guns, an act that followed in the footsteps of actions by former mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, meetings were held to explain to the people what the law meant.

As you will see from watching the video the fascist law makers did nothing to explain the interpretation of the law and what it meant to the people. It appears the majority of people at this meeting were not all that eager to be rounded up by the brown shirts of New York and locked up in prison for exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Share

Nanny Bloomberg Again: NY Mandatory Composting!

Big Apple “Voluntary” Composting Idea Stinks; Carries Health Risks, Says New York-Based Risk Expert

New York, NY – Mayor Bloomberg is planning on creating a “voluntary” composting program that will eventually become mandatory, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

“This is a rotten idea for the Big Apple,”says Jeff Stier, the New York City-based Director of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Risk Analysis Division.

The National Center for Public Policy Research supports voluntary composting. “In fact,” says Stier, “we already have voluntary composting where residents can send their kitchen scraps to gardens around the five boroughs.”

So why the need for a new program? A Bloomberg official admitted to the New York Times that while initially voluntary, the goal is to require all residents of the city to save their kitchen scraps for a government-administered composting program. Those who don’t compost would be subject to fines.

“We live in a big city, not on a farm, and while composting is a great idea in certain circumstances,” says Stier, “it doesn’t make sense to mandate that all New York residents save their rotting food.”

Stier says the Mayor’s view is skewed in favor of anything labeled “green.” “If they mayor applied his risk-averse trans-fat banning, soda-size limiting science to the risks of composting in NYC he wouldn’t be making it mandatory, he’d be banning it,” exclaims Stier.

“Consider the increased risks from disease-carrying vermin (a problem the city still hasn’t conquered), from all of the pre-compost material sitting around our dense living spaces, not going out with the trash each night,” says Stier.

Stier wonders why Nanny Bloomberg isn’t worried about greenhouse gas emissions from the extra “compost trucks” that’ll have to be deployed. “Perhaps they’ll be carrot-peel powered,” chides Stier.

“There’s no way food scraps can be picked up from every home throughout the city without greatly increasing the number of trucks, traffic, and tyranny.”

Mayor Bloomberg has banned smoking and trans fats from New York bars and restaurants, required calorie counts on restaurant menus, banned smoking in city plazas, parks and beaches, and banned private food donations to city homeless shelters in an effort to monitor the fat, salt and fiber content of foods eaten by the homeless, a story broken by Stier’s reporting.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Bill and Hillary’s Coyote Problem

Take notice that coyotes aren’t a problem when they threaten people with attack or disease. But when the coyotes begin to mess with people’s doggies and kitty cats, people begin to demand action.

And thus, like always, we are told we must learn to live with coyotes and tolerate their intrusions. So, go out and practice yelling and “intimidating” those coyotes. And while you’re at it, figure out how you are supposed to change your lifestyle in order to accommodate the nasty wild canines.

New York News | NYC Breaking News

Share