mike rossi

Bill Sc., I was wondering the same thing, what happened, how did the hunt go? Did your dog mark all the birds shot, how did he do? How did you set up - tide, time, water depth, how many decoys? Interesting you limited out on all buffleheads too!

It is the responsibility of everyone who wants a dove season, to work for it. At a minimum, sign our petition. Incorporating the premise that "doves are being harvested illegally anyway" probably won't be effective. Poaching might result in a few bands not being reported, but otherwise I don't see it causing much of a stir. And it isn't a message that will resonate with most of the Legislature, of which is not well-versed in hunting. We will keep it in mind, however, I think our case can be built with fodder that is much harder to dispute.

Bill, Your advocacy to maintain the status quo on fall turkey hunting is different. The DEC does NOT require legislative approval to close or shorten a season. However, to reinstate or establish a season, the State Legislature and the Governor needs to give the DEC the green light. Since anti-hunters in NY are capable of reaching policy makers with 8,000 letters in forty days, and hunters generally do not engage at all, other than voicing their opinions among themselves, it is indeed is a challenge. Another way these matters differ, is that the wild turkey strategy is a biological issue. The mourning dove issue is purely a social issue. While anti-hunters try to sound scientific by mis-characterization or embellishment of biological principles into their mourning dove narrative - to create the illusion of a scientific debate, it is not, it is merely a political debate.

Here is a map depicting the distribution of signatures as of November 28, 2015. Also attached for comparison is the distribution map up to September 18, 2015. When we published the September 18, 2015 map, we called everyone's attention to the "bald spots". As you can see there has been a response and improvement, however, certain areas are still lagging. Of course, some of the bald spots cover the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, and other areas where few or no people live. Even prior to September 18, 2015, we stepped up efforts in the Lower Hudson Valley, NYC, and Long Island. These regions carry the most weight in the NY State Assembly, and cooperation form Assembly members in those regions is important to the success of this initiative. As evinced on the map, the response in these regions has been very good! We still have a ways to go and we urge everyone to maintain all the stamina they can muster and keep pushing!

Last year the DEC opened its revised mute swan plan for public comment. Little or none of the actions set forth in this plan required legislative approval. The public comment period was open for 45 days and the DEC received over 8,000 comments, mostly from animal rights advocates. NY Dove Hunting submitted comment, wrote the Legislature, the DEC, and the Governor. Before the public comment period was completed, Senator Avella and Assemblyman Cybrowitz put pressure on the DEC by introducing legislation which would prevent the DEC from implementing its mute swan strategies. Defying all common sense, this bill passed with only 25 legislators voting against it - all from the assembly; which means the entire republican majority senate also voted anti DEC. NY Dove Hunting than created a petition which was signed by about 350 persons. We submitted the petition to the governor, along with video evidence of the impacts of mute swans. In December 2015, Governor Cuomo did indeed VETO the legislation. However Avella and Cybrowitz were not willing to take no for an answer. They reintroduced the bill, with minor modifications (* see below), and it passed again. We are in the process of verifying the vote, to determine how many legislators changed their vote the second time around. We believe (ONE) senator (may) have voted against the bill the second time.Check our websites at a latter date for this information. The second bill was also VETOED by Cuomo earlier this week. Cuomo's veto message for the second bill was: "The circumstances that necessitated my disapproval have not changed". (*) 1. Prioritize non-lethal methods when dealing with mute swans 2. DEC must hold a MINIMUM of two public hearings before taking any action.

There is no hunting season for mute swans or native swans in NY, but there is in some other states. The term "waterfowl" includes ducks, geese, and swans. Other water birds such as rails are not "waterfowl", but swans certainly are. And they are good eating too.... Here is a recipe and notice we have created another website: http://thefoodcentrichunter.weebly.com/swan-leg-choucroute.html

I think it would do more good if I don't itemize. I am hoping more and more hunters start to understand the way non-hunters perceive hunting and hunters. Pre-internet, if the big outdoor publications and outdoor columnists were putting more emphasis on eating wild game meat as an element of hunting, we would have more public support today and anti-hunting narratives would have been given more scrutiny. We actually arrived at a point which these narratives include the premise that hunters do not eat wild game - and that premise is actually believed.

Check it out: http://thefoodcentrichunter.weebly.com/swan-leg-choucroute.html

As most of you know the anti-pheasant movement includes some hunters , including some who then turn around and tout the proverbial hunters should stick together. We (NY Dove Hunting and The Bird Hunting Society) have published counter arguments to this distortion of the facts. We are currently working on a series of reports about the matter. As a prelude to these reports, I want to share with you some of the photos we will be using and introduce the claim made made by antis (including hunters or people pretending to be hunters or paid google trolls drumming up hits for advertising - sporting gun, camo, and dead things complete). Anybody who has actually killed game birds, rather than just talks about it (or how easy they are), examines crop contents.... Here are a few, more to come....Stay tuned for series of reports........ http://thebirdhuntingsociety.weebly.com/bird-crops.html

This was a week or two ago. We are on youtube and vimeo, by the way. Links to all our social media are on our websites.

Bill, The season has been open since October 1 in the SZ. Since then we flushed well over 100 grouse, The first week alone, we flushed at least 100. Its hard to be certain you are not counting re-flushes, but we are mindful of that when we count.

Early in the season and right before, there seemed to be a fair number of resident and/or early flight birds. We didnt see another push of birds until the last day of the season. That was Saturday - I waited to see what was out there on the following day before I posted. On Sunday, about 30 miles north of where we hunted Saturday, there also seemed to be flight birds. Not sure if that confirms anything, even though we have been hunting both areas as well as other areas every week, but it might. Its all over for woodcock in NY, but there is the Pa, season goes to the twenty eighth. The tail end of the Pa. season might be good.

No thanks, but Is this your website: http://www.remembertodie.com/ ? If so, hunting has nothing to do with the topic. Seems you are bobbing for apples for content, but hunting is not a good fit for your project.

Not sure if you are asking about gang rigging or making a jerk rig. You can gang rig puddle duck decoys, however that practice is more commonly used for diving ducks. There are a number of reasons for this. 1) A flock of divers sit on the water in "rafts." It is easier to set a raft spread by gang rigging. 2) Divers, when they approach a raft swim up to the other birds in a line, so a line of decoys on a gang rig imitates that. 3) Other times divers will fly into the raft instead of swimming. However, they will follow the line of swimmers to the main pod of birds. In theory, with the correct wind and other conditions, you can funnel the birds to you with such a decoy set up. 4) Puddle ducks generally do not raft or follow lines of swimming birds. I am not saying it will never work, but puddle duck decoys set up in a diver duck pattern is not natural. A jerk rig is different. That is to put motion in the spread. There are many ways to make a jerk rig, but the concept is you pull the decoys from a fixed point (stake or large anchor or tied to a tree ) . Attached to the fixed object is a section of bungee cord. You pull the line and stretch the bungee which moves the decoys toward you. You then release the line and the bungee draws the decoys back toward the fixed point. So you get back and forth motion. It might be easier just to buy a robo duck or mojo, because these are legal in NY. Some states they are not, in those states the jerk rig is more popular because a robo duck is not an option.

You pretty much nailed it. You roughly described mounting political support, what we and the DEC have been telling hunters they need to do to reinstate dove hunting in NY. I wouldn't call them wackos though. I have indeed encountered some insane anti-hunting premises, but name calling goes nowhere. The guy who complained in Putnam indicated he has been a resident for 20 years, and seemed to be aware of the traditional hunting practices in the area as well. So,I would say the new people moving next to the dairy farm analogy doesn't fit well for this one either. Look, at one of the Senate hearings which only hunters who were invited by senators, the question about effective range versus maximum range was asked 10 different times to 10 different hunters who all appeared at least 60 years old. Only one, a retailer, was able to understand and answer the question. What kind of confidence does that install in non hunters? The average anti hunter has a masters degree. The average hunter has only attended school until the eighth grade. The number of people who fight against hunting in NY is relatively few. When a bill is pending or the DEC has an open public comment period, usually less than 1,000 anti-hunters engage, especially when they believe hunters are also engaged. However, when they think they are pulling a sneak attack or hunters are divided, they are extremely well organized and quickly weigh in with much larger numbers. The situation among lawmakers is similar. There are about 212 NY State Legislators. Out of that 212, there are only four NY politicians endorsed by the humane society and have a history of introducing numerous bills to limit hunting opportunity. The other 208 lawmakers will consider what their constituents tell them when they make up their minds about how they vote on a bill. Sometimes a lawmaker will be contacted by one or two people about a bill, other times they will be contacted by 5,000. So the morale of the story is don't worry about every democrat in the world, worry about making your own voice heard. But when you are heard, make sure you got your facts straight.... And, things like field and stream are not good fact sources, by the way.....

I also wanted to say that I appreciate that McCay looked up the county agenda and posted the link here. More people should be doing that sort of thing. Not only does it help out it shows different people are interested in a matter, which is also important. People are less likely to act if they dont get their own hands dirty and/or they dont see more than a few people involved. However, I became frustrated at the suggestion this matter be ignored. That goes against what needs to be done regarding not only this matter but all hunting related matters. The "dont worry about this one" mantra is used often, and every time it is it reinforces to things: 1) inaction 2) follow, dont take initiative. The hunting community needs to grow away from all that. The narrative about liberals and democrats also entered the discussion here. When you actually participate in these policy hearings or otherwise interface with policy makers you wont be debating which party is driving a proposal or which party is ruining the country. If you do you will look like a fool and probably be ejected. When people are trying to "get it done", they dont really want to play around with the liberal dem narrative. It does nothing to inform people about anything meaningful or get them to engage. So, the point is complaining about the democrats does nothing and it moves the focus away from actually doing something productive. This hate narrative is very popular with hunters, but there is also no shortage of places to discuss it online. So why enter it into a conversation that is trying to mobilize hunters into action? This thread is not a place for it. Never the less, we conducted an investigation into the matter of the influence of political party on hunting policy. The results of the investigation conclude that political party does not influence hunting policy. The investigation spanned very wide into different scenarios. It examined different states. It examined different game animals. And it covered a historical period from present back to the 1950s or earlier. Under all those variables, political party was not a factor. If you are interested in reading the report refer to these two links: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/the-effects-of-democrats-republicans-and-election-years-on-re-instating-hunting-seasons.html http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/our-elected-officials-in-the-field.html

The movement to eliminate or reduce hunting in Putnam county is going to exist longer than any one politician's career. Therefore, it is not wise to ignore a growing movement (it always grows) because some politician or her aid tells you its all under control is . That goes for the officer of some hunting club who also says its under control. However, that is exactly how hunters frequently respond to these matters. And yeah, I do define that as overconfidence. When these discussions happen it is important to have a presence at them. I don't mean standing with signs and going off on rants. Some of these hearings are informational, where you do not have the opportunity to voice your opinions,but you sometimes may ask questions. Other hearings are for input from the public. A presence at both informational and input hearings is important, but keep it professional.

That may be so, but let me point out two things. First, it gets a movement in gear. Even though a county wide ban seems out of reach, a ban on county property, waterways, or within certain municipalities is easy to envision. Second, I read from the link you provided, that the County Executive's name is Mary Ellen. How pro hunting can someone named Mary Ellen be? Within the pdf document at the link you provided Mary Ellen Odal sent a message to Elizabeth green and Nicholas Deperno asking quote: " Tell me how you are going to proceed"; referring to the complaint. That doesn't bode for strong leadership nor does it sound like a person well informed about hunting and/or firearms or who has given prior thought to the matter. Or is concerned about it either. it sounds like a person who doesnt know what to do. Then what happens when the county executive changes? The movement to ban hunting can even be the impetus which threatens a politicians job. Even if she does not retire, get voted out, or reach term limits, do you know with certainty how we she react to possible political pressure by an organized movement? That is why such boastful , over confident statements that encourage inaction are harmful. A well behaved and professional presence at public forums is ALWAYS needed. None of this "its going no where" bull. Now, if this was not a forum open to the public, that is not my fault, I am just the messenger, but in general terms that does not invalidate what I am saying. I pass on what I am asked to, but I am not a language interpreter fluent in idiot and moron.

I do not know - the post is an exact copy of the message I received, I am just passing it along. I guess you can call both the town and the county and find out, if you do please post the info here.

ACTION NEEDED TONIGHT*****Attention Sportsmen and women in Putnam and surrounding counties!! It was just brought to my attention that TONIGHT at 6:30 our Legislature will be hearing an argument that Shooting guns and Hunting in Putnam should not be allowed. Please if you can make it show up to the Putnam Legislature Building at 6pm and voice your opinion. Spread the word so that we don"t get a sneak attack on our rights! Share this everywhere!

Shooting a shotgun is nothing like shooting a rifle. However, sometimes a shotgun is used like a rifle as in deer and turkey hunting. Most people learn to shoot a rifle with a 22 caliber or an air rifle. When that is mastered, there is not much difficulty transferring over to a high power deer rifle or shotgun loaded with a slug. In hunting turkey, you will shoot a shotgun rifle style, but you will be using regular shotgun ammo, not single projectile ammo. Someone can teach you about rifle shooting in a few minutes. Then you need to practice a bit, but not much. Shooting a shotgun is much different. It takes longer to master shotgun shooting and it is best to take lessons from a certified instructor. Shotgun shooting in the context I am speaking involves shooting moving targets with a shot shell opposed to shooting a rifle at stationary target with a single projectile. (Again shotguns can be loaded with a single projectile and vice versa, but for clarity lets just say rifle shooting and shotgun shooting). For "shotgun shooting" I recommend you take a few lessons and then continue to practice at the range for some time. In my opinion an over and under shotgun is best, safest, and most reliable.I am not sure about shooting single projectiles from an over and under, although it certainly is possible. However, a breech gun has many advantages, one of which is it allows you to easily inspect the barrel. Single shot breech action shotguns designed for single projectiles are available, but some hunters want more than a one shot. There is a guy based in NYC who has classes for new deer hunters. I hate to refer him, because I plan to enter the same business venture at some point, but he can be found on the web under Locavore Hunter, I forgot his name, but you can find him with a google search. I have no idea how good he is and I know nothing about him except what I read online.

I know this is discouraging, but those sources only exist to sell you something, whether a product, a service, or an ideology. Believe me they have shaped the evolution of hunting to its present form. You probably sense that, because you are looking for people for info. The buyer beware applies to consuming media too, not just a physical product. A consensus in the world of hunting does not mean you arrived at fact, but some marketing scheme works good. You need to take your advice from a public land hunter. But I wouldn't expect anyone to show you exact locations of game or where to hunt, unless you team up and hunt together, which people do. I would look to the DEC for info. If you can stand it, you might just target shoot for a year, learn about wildlife and the land, and perhaps hunting dogs. Most people dont they take their course and go, but I ma not sure if thats best. Try the DEC, like I said.

That serves a dual purpose, it also gets the blocks moving and muddles the water. Might even toll in some birds.

We got a few people to get on this, but the response is not sufficient to carry a dove bill. Sent this out today as a reminder: Fire Drill What do these words mean to you: Paul Revere, the midnight ride, the liberty bell, the boy who cried wolf, fire drill, emergency plan, contingency plan, readiness, defense, counter punch, rebuttal, rebuke, debunk, refute, push-back? Do bullies stop bullying if they are not subject to a consequence? Do bullies test their victims to find their weaknesses? Do bullies try to alienate their victims so that they have no friends? National anti-hunting organizations have tested the NY hunting community and they think the bird hunters are the weak link. That is the form of hunting think they can take away. Like bullies they tested, they alienated bird hunters from other hunters, and they have not suffered any consequences for their actions. NY Dove Hunting keeps making and breaking the same promise: That we will stick to only the matter of dove hunting and we will reduce our contacts to one a month, and through our newsletter, and that newsletter would replace our email messages. The exception being Facebook subscribers who will receive soundbite size newsfeed from us once or twice a week. This past week, we deviated again. Although we need to contradict a statement in the last paragraph – we are a one-issue organization, but there are a few other interests we will defend. One of them is pheasant. Whether it is conservation of wild-hatched populations, stocking incubator – hatched birds, and hunting pheasants, NY Dove Hunting will fight to death over pheasant matters. Last week, on their Facebook page, the DEC posted about their effort to crackdown on road hunting of pheasant. Numerous persons, probably paid internet trolls sponsored by the Humane Society of the US, conflated the DEC’s message and high jacked the discussion about road hunting pheasant to spread their pheasant rhetoric. We have advised previously that the DEC Facebook page has more participation by anti-hunters than hunters; to the extent they disrupt any meaningful form of communication. We also have advised about the importance of responding and responding appropriately to anti-hunting editorials, in general, not just on Facebook. We outlined how to track such editorial content and also indicated that we would be ringing the siren when we become aware of any so that our subscribers can respond. Our community has improved in this regard, however we have not grown enough. If a dove bill was introduced today, that would mean a two year editorial public opinion battle with the antis. The response from last week, if it mirrored the response to the Facebook squabble, indicates we are not close to passing a dove bill in NY State. We did indeed get some cooperation, go look at the Facebook post. However, it was not strong enough and few of those we reached bothered to act. We are not going to reinvent the wheel every six months; we outlined several times the importance of debunking these editorials. There are many different reasons for in-action which vary from person to person; however, we are still receiving feedback from some people believe these editorial protests do not matter. We maintain they do indeed matter and that they are a tactic used by anti-hunters to influence public opinion, political opinion, and as a tool to spread misinformation. Misinformation, that is; incorrect info repeated often enough, becomes accepted as fact, and then very difficult to dislodge. Let’s stay away from the pheasant rhetoric. Let’s look at one mourning dove example, one of many. If you invest the time in reading Fred Neff’s manifesto, you will see some of the reiberations he has got from various members of the Legislature over many years. Reiberations that trained attorneys, elected to the NY Legislature, derived from the HSUS’s website section dedicated to mourning doves. A list of premises, all incorrect. Yet, Neff’s effort was not given the benefit of fact checking the propaganda provided by campaign donors. No effort to get at the facts or apply the due diligence expected from lawmakers. We might add, some of these exchanges have treated Neff quite rudely. We will cite one example; remember we emphasize one example, when there are numerous examples. The HSUS has claimed for 30 years in its dove propaganda, which has not been modified in that many years, only put online with the advent of the internet, a laundry list of misinformation. Let’s discuss just one: Doves reduce undesirable plants. We love that one, because this actually originated from a biologist. However, birds are seed dispersers – they promote the spread of plants, both beneficial plants and undesirable pest plants. And, birds that eat almost entirely seeds – mourning dove check, with huge populations – mourning dove check; and birds that migrate - mourning dove check, disperse even more seeds than something like a wild turkey. Yet the Humane Society has sold that to the public and the NY Legislature for 30 years. Perhaps that is a bad example, because someone can pull out the outdated and incorrect document from a biologist, who made this claim. Bad example or not, we will use this one, the HSUS likes to fight, and so do we, so we will give them some rope and they can cite the document and make an argument from authority…. The bottom line is this is why YOU need the facts and why YOU need to push back at those editorials with the facts. And if a Lawmaker gives you a line of rhetoric, YOU can set him straight. Sometimes it’s not complicated – former state senator Mark Grisanti claimed doves are not edible. Other times you need solid information. The entire point of this correspondence is: your cooperation in responding factually to these editorial attacks is going to be very important to the success of future dove legislation. There are some who will tell you otherwise, including those with a case of overconfidence due to an officer position with a rod and gun club or federation or something. However, do not fall for it. There has been inaction on dove legislation for three decades in NY and other states have similar histories. Give the NY Dove Hunting Team the benefit of the doubt and trust us.