mike rossi

My You tube channel recieved a subscription today from an individual who appeared to be interested in trapping. I discovered he had suscribed to 29 other sportsman channels, mostly trappers, including numerous minors. I further discovered that the common denominator was not trapping, nor the outdoors; but that this was of the sexual nature. A few more mouse clicks & it became apparent that there exists a network of the same perverted interest. I will guide you through the navigation. To warm you all up, I will get slightly off topic..The first link is a satire about big foot. However, we have actually had this happen. Actually, we didnt realize this was about big foot. Here is that link: Now, getting back on the subject started. Click here; this is my new subscriber: http://www.youtube.com/user/lieslaars?ob=0&feature=results_main Click here for a list of his favorite videos: Here is one of his favorites from NY state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwbWNfWVQ&context=C3d8f997ADOEgsToPDskLBbsppZgKeTlu5Qae0_pMO Here is one of several favorites who are minors: I think this is pretty lousy and I feel like my world is invaded by things I do not want and certainly do not want my children exposed to.

That might be true, even if it is, stranger things have happened. Its not going to get any less interesting as numbers of hunters continue to decline while the non hunting public increasingly discovers WMAs and views them as parks, dumps, or back-alleys. I dont know how many total acres of public land exists in NY; but I know it is alot more then the 187,000 acres put aside for wildlife & associated recreation. It seems crazy to me that just that puny amount of land cant be managed according to concepts it was born under. Like I posted earlier, why even have any wildlife management areas?

Share cropping, grazing, and logging are sometimes used as a wildlife mangement tool. I believe the USFWS does consider these appropriate when they aid a management objective. Judicious share cropping, grazing, and logging can be benificial and save money, or even generate money. It is the wildlife manager's responsibility to make sure that these activities are done with a conservation perspective rather than an economic perspective. Since the farmer or logger is in it for money, terms & conditions should be developed. This like the other stuff can be good; but it could also be an abuse.

The states natural resource agency, ie. the DEC as the titleholder has the first say. But if the state wants to recieve its share of wildlife restoration funds, its regs must not conflict or be more liberal, then the federal guidelines. If they are, that states annual payment will be redistributed to the other states. Thats not opinion. An example of my opinion is that domestic dogs in bird nesting habitat during the warm months impacts wildlife. Even though an opinion; it resonates with common sense AND has scientific consensus behind it.

The current rat study may include determining if the females are denned up; to do this would require live capture and use of telemetry. A study like that would take every bit of 5 years. Before someone growls how broke the DEC is; the DEC has wildlife restoration funds to the tune of 14 million dollars ANNUALLY; for this sort of study. Lets say it is found that in the areas studied; the sex ratio is not skewed toward females; rather it is concluded that it is because the females are in the huts; there would be no management implications and no relevant data to prove or disprove a declining muskrat population. All this would do is disprove a skewed sex ratio. So the study would continue to look for other explainations.

Well I hunt waterfowl, not deer, and they too often interfere with my hunting. That they are there during the warm months, outside of firearm deer season, is actually worse, because that is when wildlife rear their young. Hunting & trapping is regulated; these other activities are not seasonal. People & domestic animals in the field 365 days a year is not conservation savvy. Every wildlife biologist knows that wildlife mangement is people management. Whats going on defeats the purpose of a wildlife mangement area. Why even have a WMA? "Take a Kid Hunting" is the new conservation ethic. Why is it appropriate for a youth to go hunting, on a public hunting area, and see more half dressed people than ducks?

WMA land is almost always purchased and/or managed with wildlife restoration funds. Each state agrees to abide by a set of conditions in return for recieving these funds. In addition to policy conditions; the state imposes a different set of rules differing from other "state land". One of the conditions is that wildlife is protected from interference; and that wildlife-related recreation is protected from interference. Wildlife-related recreation is NOT: biking, hiking, loitering, exercising, nor is it allowing a doggy park or allowing domestic animals to pilage. What is intended use, you ask. The entity which administers the program, the USFWS clearly defines legitimate uses as wildlife conservation & protection, wildlife study, and wildlife-related recreation.

Thats pretty strange! Pollution is suspected to change sex of amphibians, lets hope not with muskrats! I would hedge my bet that the sex ratio is skewed towards males because the females are more heavily effected by predation while rearing young, but thats just a guess. It is believed male rats have bigger home ranges / territories & move more, and therefore more likely to get trapped, but since you got 100% males that doent seem likely. Some diseases are gender specific too, but that assumption would also be a huge leap of faith. Hopefully it is just an extreme odd role of the dice. Muskrats, like alot of plant eaters have fluctuating population cycles. The 10 year peak & valley cycle of snowshoe hares is known to alot of people. However muskrats also have a population cycle, I believe it is 12 years, but Im not sure. I trap too. This season every rat I caught was large or xlarge. Great from the standpoint of more valuable fur. But it is telling a story. An ageing population (few or zero juveniles) indicates that population is on the down swing. Could be the areas I trapped this year are approaching the bottom of the cycle, and may not peak again for 12 or 13 years!

Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are lands that are supposed to be managed for wildlife; wildlife study; and wildlife-related recreation. Wildlife-related recreation is hunting, trapping, and bird watching. WMAs have different rules & more restrictions than other "state lands". Many states include the language "public hunting area" and/or "open to licensed hunters & trappers". Which sinage do you think is more informative? I like the green signs and detest the yellow ones. I want the DEC to use the green signs. What are your opinions?

I realized I jumped the string after I posted, however, newspapers are not always accurate and I find it hard to believe (but not impossible to believe) that elected officials would be stupid enough to believe they could pull that off. Or incompetent enough to make such a mistake. Sorry to get off track but I still think what I said is worth examining. Regarding another comment I made please follow the link and read the last two sentences. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7288.html

Very true. The part about the relationship between license sales and quality of hunting has already arrived if you consider small game and waterfowl hunting. This is meant to be productive, not to bash them... And it may be a bad example because NY wild turkey populations are good... On the DEC website there is or was; a statement that hunters should consume dairy products because dairy farms create turkey habitat. It may be true that dairy operations create favorable conditions for wild turkey; but is that the management plan for turkeys, to ask hunters to use dairy products?

I am sure alot of people are wondering the same thing. With the PR/DJ funding, being as you said, high profile, in addition to it being an act of congress with specific language prohibiting the diversion of funds. Mere speculation is that the funds didnt go directly into the general fund.... Maybe the money was not dumped into the General Fund; but non wildlife/fisheries programs were misclassified as wildlife/fisheries. This is the same thing as diverting funds, its just less obvious. The public, including sportsmen, are termed "stakeholders". Each state does discretion on how to use the funds as long as it is within guidelines. If, we, sportsmen, want roads built on WMAs instead of wetland restoration, the DEC might do that. Then an audit may find that a problem. I am not sure if the funding of staff is relevant here either. I dont believe these funds are supposed to be for staffing. If the state is using it for payroll, that may be diversion. Broadly the funds are for:1) habitat enhancement, aquisition and maintenance. Maintenence is not trash pickup and such, but it may be prescribed burning; water level management, brush hogging. 2) Wildlife and Fisheries scientific study 3) And a small percentage the amount I am not sure of, for hunter education, mainly printed material, because instructors are volunteers. Most states have a paid sportsman education coordination staff, but I dont know the guidlines regarding that. $21 million, every year, is alot of money. I just dont see where all these habitat projects are. I do see our WMAs being made into park like facilities however. If we put some part of the $21 mill into habitat annually where is it? And that isnt even the only source of money for habitat. One example is wetland mitigation. If for example Wallmart builds on a wetland, Wallmart is responsible, by law, the creation of a wetland of the same size within so many miles of the impacted natural wetland. Wallmart, not PR/DJ funds. This is a fairly recent law, and it is enforced, so before you assume its your PR/DJ funds, consider it may be some private entity. I just gave you alot of speculation. But one thing is for sure, we hunters must start walking our talk about being stewards and conservationists. I have encountered numerous sportsmen call someone a "tree hugger" because he mentions habitat or disagrees with a road etc.... If that mentality exists in our ambassadors to the DEC, it will enable the diversion of wildlife restoration funds.

TheUSFWS periodically audits every state, doing a few states a year or something like that. If a state diverts any wildlife restoration money, that is PR and/or DJ funds; the USFWS suspends that state's annual share, indefinetly, until the state complies with the conditions of recieving these funds. This is an excellent policy- its not about the USFWS spending NY's cut. Its about checks and balances. Wildlife and Fisheries money should not be diverted, and state goverments do try to misuse this money. The funds can also be suspended if the state's wildlife and fisheries agency is not doing its job in some way or another. The organizations that represent us to the DEC are purportedly functioning to spend (our) money "wisely" and manage (our public PR/DJ lands) "wisely". The fact is, mention the word "habitat", or explain the issues of lead shot, and those sort of things to our voices to the DEC and you dont get the response of a "conservationist". The DEC does listen to sportsmen, perhaps even when sometimes it should not. Wise use is wise use; wise use is not what a group of people want. I am interested in what the suspension (really) is for.