mike rossi

Did you know one New England state auctions 3 of the permits allocated in the quota? Did you know the SCI itself also manages to auction off tags - I dont know exactly how that works but it is done. So now, wealthy people really have few competitors in such an auction I would say... Plus it fits right into their ego - I can buy anything right out from others..... Silly lotteries are for peasants.... Auctioning tags is NOT consistent with the Public trust Doctrine, The North American Wildlife Conservation Model, nor the mission statement of the NY DEC or any other state wildlife agencies.... Yet it is done....

"In 2007 the NY Legislature earmarked $50,000 of PUBLIC FUNDS for the SCI" Source: Line 25 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safari_Club_International Will, a good guy, but Larry is right again: http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/outdoors/will-elliotts-hunting-moose-hunt-bountiful-20141012 According to the HSUS: The average SCI member earns over $100,000 a year and only 6% of the hunters in the US earn that much. SCI is a 501c. Conservation, outdoor education, and humanitarian services What is a 501c: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501©_organization A 501© organization, also known colloquially as a 501©, is a tax-exempt nonprofit organization in the United States. Section 501© of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501©) provides that 29 types of nonprofit organizations are exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501© for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well. 501© organizations can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions. Donating trophy mounts to museums is tax deductible Did I mention that in 2007 the NY Legislature earmarked $50,000 of public funds for the SCI?

A moose season would create a modest increase in hunting opportunity for a minority of hunters. It would also create a modest increase in conservation and general economic revenue. A moose season would not appeal to non-hunters and would have no value in recruiting new hunters or in enabling older hunters to hunt longer. It would not benefit people who are physically or financially challenged. That includes people who may not have a barn or garage or backyard to process an animal even as large as a deer much less a moose. Even if quartered in the field, a vehicle must be at least so big. The rack of a bull moose alone is huge - no doubt this is what most hunters are after, not the meat. The origin of the legislation in both houses, is Erie County, Moose range would be at least four hours from Buffalo, probably double that to a hunting location. SCI is an organization whose members are primarily interested in trophy animals. Moose get quite large, including the antlers. There happens to be a SCI chapter located in Erie County, in the same town as one of the bill sponsors, as a matter of fact, that is the town of East Aurora. The members of the SCI are generally wealthy - as their passion involves traveling internationally and purchasing tags often over $10,000. I have heard of some paying well over $100,000 for several tags on a hunt. Wealthy people often have a more direct pipe to lawmakers than the average person. A NY moose season does not benefit the average hunter as much as it does a wealthy hunter. It certainly is of little benefit to the average hunter who resides in Erie county. Establishing new hunting seasons is very difficult. Although this bill still needs to clear the assembly and the governor, it seemed to had cleared the senate rather seamlessly. The ease at which it cleared the senate leads a reasonable and prudent person to question whether this was not a political favor, especially considering the location of the sponsors in relation to the NY moose population.....

Your breath is baited with bovine feces.... Would it be enough to answer NO, I am not saying any of that? Just because you or someone else has the resources to do any of the things you list, doesn't mean the majority of people do as well. I would say, that in terms of increasing hunting opportunity and/or recruiting hunters, moose hunting is not the best path. If you cant understand that, oh well...

Remember I said there was a chapter right in the same town as the assemblyman? and the senator is about 19 miles from that town.... But hey, why pay attention to details....

You live in the state of Maine, I know who you are... And who does it seem weird too? I am not opposing it, nor am I aware of anyone or organization who has weighed in against it so far. I am not sure the DEC will go for it though....

The point of this post is Who walked into the offices of two buffalo area lawmakers and not only convinced them to introduce a moose bill, but compelled them to work at moving it.....

Good luck getting up and down the hills of the dacks with your bull moose in a 2003 ford escape.... And you will make it back in 4 hours too.... A lot of members on here are from the Bronx and Brooklyn and all that... What are they going to do with their 1,000 pound harvest? ("donate it to the natives'?) Maybe Elmo can deal with it, but we are going to excite all these non hunters about hunting for moose.... The hunting community thinks of itself as practical, especially the far right wing. However, they are anything but practical and everything idealistic.....

I believe he simply relayed to me what he was told. It is not inherently bad that someone or some organization supports this bill, but as you and I both know, despite the comment by Dinsdale, the SCI generally is made up of rich dudes who hunt for trophies - literally travelling to far corners of the world to do this hunting. Senator Gallivan had to do some pumping to move this bill and he did. Now, Assemblyman DiPietro, sponsor of the "same as bill" needs to do some pumping. But, he doesn't even need to disclose where he lives to acknowledge my point.

I do not see any evidence NY state, including the DEC has anything to do with this bill. Let me ask you something, you are in Long Island correct? I am about 5 hours from there. If I my assembly rep and senate rep introduced a set of bills relating to something like striped bass or summer flounder or shellfish, wouldn't you find that strange?

WHO are you saying is motivated by that?

Just got this email: Can't think of a source prompting Sen. Gallavan so I called his office and his aide, Jim Ranney, told me the Senator had gotten this moose input during crossbow discussions with sportsmen's groups years ago. No specifics beyond that i.e. mention of individuals or SCI. Will

I am running out of angles to explain this. The geographic area where the lawmakers who introduced this bill is seven hours from moose country. There happens to be a SCI chapter in the area, SCI members are into shooting big stuff, really big stuff, and are big travelers, going to Africa and all those expensive hunts. That's what they are in to..Going to the ADKs from Buffalo would merely mean hopping into their private jet.... I do not find it credible that the average hunter living seven hours out of the ADKs would be as enthused about this bill as a SCI type. However, there is no chatter about this on the chapters face book page. So that leads me to believe this was not a resolution by the chapter. The bill passed the senate, with only four voting against it and one senator excused from the vote because he is in Florida being treated for cancer and/or awaiting criminal charges. In NY, hunting legislation not driven by the DEC usually is a result of a deal. We will pass your bill if you pass this one we want passed. The bill sponsor is only going to wheel and deal for someone he values, like a donor or head of an organization he can reap votes from. This Erie county senator had to MAKE that bill move, it just doesn't flow by gravity.... Is it possible that since this bill was introduced that it was sportsmen who moved the bill by calling lawmakers over and over and sending letters? Of course it is possible, but has anyone on here heard of such a campaign? I have not. Why do I think this was not driven by the DEC? Because the DEC does not mention any harvest strategy. The first I heard of anyone hinting of an expanding population is the link you posted. That link doesn't even claim the population is growing, it is saying it might.... Which contradicts what I said earlier, because every summary I have read is that the forecast for moose pops is to decline in adjacent states. Doesn't matter, because they are only one year into a three year study, and the article you provided was a year old I think. And, as I said earlier, I think the DEC Legislative affairs Branch based in Albany would procure more than two sponsors on the west corner of the state. True, no doubt it would turn a profit... But nothing I can turn up shows the primary purpose was to spin the state economy and/or boost the conservation fund. Revenue is one element mentioned in the justification, but IMO it doesn't have the sponsorship, including the Governor to say with any degree of certainty this was revenue motivated.

looked up some stuff... 1) SCI does indeed have a chapter with an address in East Aurora 2) This chapter has an updated face book page, but no mention of this bill 3) The chapter website does not load 4) There are five chapters in NY 5) SC INTERNATIONAL has 55,000 members worldwide 6) Assemblyman Joe Giglio, who covers the district just south of Buffalo/East Auraro, is NOT a sponsor of this bill. However, Giglio is a member of the local chapter of SCI. 7) At one point in the bills history Senator Seward was also a sponsor, however unless there is some error in the senate record, he apparently dropped off. That is interesting imo. The SCI and local chapters award scholarships 9) Per the SCI Website: "​Since 2000 SCI has spent $140 million dollars on protecting freedom to hunt through policy advocacy, litigation, and education for federal and state legislators to ensure hunting for generations. Through direct involvement and partnership with like-minded organizations, SCI has become a political force in Washington DC." Moose Populations and Cost of Moose Permit Lottery Application and actual Permit Cost in New England States: Moose populations are DOWN in every New England state and Minnesota. This is because of high whitetail deer populations infesting moose with eye-worms which whitetails can handle, but kill moose, and ticks which also kill moose. Moose do not survive in regions that have many days above 75% F, climate change is a concern regarding moose distribution and population sizes. There are no current studies such as the one being done by Suny ESF with the DEC that are showing moose populations are growing as speculated by woodcock Matt. That study and others like it in other states are being done because there is speculation moose are on the decline, not the rise. The study woodcock Matt was referring to is slated to take three years, and only began in 2014. New Hampshire: Population estimated at 4,000 down from 7,400 in the 1990s. This state has the most expensive lottery, $150 for residents and $500 for nonresidents. Maine: Population 65,000 moose. Issue 2,700 tags. Both residents and non residents pay $15. The state with the largest moose population besides Alaska, at least east of the Mississippi only rakes in fifteen dollars.... How much is a NY tag worth to hunt a population of 800 moose compared to 65,000? Now tell me all about it again please? Vermont: Lottery is $10 for residents and $25 for nonresidents. Tags are $100 and $350 respectively VT issues 300 tags for a population of .2,500 moose. Massachusetts: Has 900 moose and issues twelve permits. A few permits in some states are "auctioned". Finally, this is what the DEC says about moose and auto crashes: Vehicle Collisions: Vehicle collisions are a significant mortality factor for moose, especially where road densities are high. Moose are so tall that an automobile usually passes under the body, causing the moose to come over the hood into the windshield and onto the roof. Moose are most active from dusk to dawn, when their coloration makes them difficult to see in the roadway and their eyes are usually above the reach of car headlights. About one to two percent of moose/car collisions result in a human fatality. DEC is working with the Department of Transportation to develop warning methods for motorists in moose country. Research in other states has shown that vehicle speed is the most common factor leading to moose collisions, so the best way to avoid hitting a moose is to slow down, especially from dusk to dawn. SOURCE; http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/6964.html And below from: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/74663.html Known Moose Mortalities in New York, 1990-2011 Year Motor Vehicle Collisions Brainworm Other/ Unknown Total 1990 1 1 1991 1 1 1992 3 3 1993 4 4 1994 1 1 1995 4 4 1996 2 2 1997 2 2 1998 1 1 1999 1 1 2000 5 5 2001 7 4 11 2002 4 4 2003 No data No data 2004 16 16 2005 No data 2006 16 16 2007 7 2 3 12 2008 7 1 8 2009 8 1 1 10 2010 6 4 3 13 2011 4 1 5

The bill was introduced way before the budget - someone in the legislature, and indeed the Governor, would have moved this bill as part of the budget (like they did with crossbows) if this was intended for what you indicated. Another thing is although the state is broke, the Bureau of Wildlife is doing well.... And, any revenue in the BOW's account cannot be swept for other purposes because the law prohibits that. Finally, I think when the Legislature develops economic recovery items, they do it in groups. There are only two sponsors to this legislation. That said, the stated justification of the bill is: 1) Hunting opportunity for residents and nonresidents 2) Management of the moose population 3) To generate revenue Like I said, I think Ladwaz figured it out.....

You may very well have nailed it Larry...

Because when that nut Mike Rossi runs for office people are going to be burning rubber to leave the state..... He has no chance of winning, but the risk is too great and people wont chance it.....

Then what is your theory? I might agree someone came in and said they as an officer of some organization represent X number of hunters..... (all in your voting district 7 hours away from moose country).... Or 4 or 5 rich guys who hunt together or think alike instead of one.... I will say it is pretty obvious how states with 600 or 700 trappers managed to fight off anti-trappers to the point trapping is no longer the top of the anti hunting agenda. True the fur market is a shadow of what it was, but its still multi Billion dollars, with only a few major outlets. You really dont think those billion dollar industries are not greasing the palms of lawmakers to protect their source of fur - the trapper and fur rancher? Or is it so and so association with 200 members? Crossbows? Well the archery industry sells crossbows as well as compounds. A cultural shift to crossbows means hunters will upgrade - it does not mean they will lose business. Crossbows are a gain not a loss. They probably donated, but to which camp? Here is the deal: we need to read the most recent moose conservation plan and see if the DEC even hinted about a season. Then, you mentioned a moose study, (which to me means something different than a conservation plan - qualify your context so we are on the same page please) ; were there any recommendations for harvest or statements that the population will support hunting? I am sure 800 moose will support hunting by permit - New England states hunt moose by permit with similar populations.... But what did the study you referenced say?

That is another likely candidate. Could even be from out of state. Or the insurance industry. But for sure its someone connected and/or what is known as a "donor".....

I didn't imply that it would be easy, and you are being a something that starts with P and rymes with Rick....

Matt, If you do not have enough wildlife policy savvy to understand the process, imagine how lost others are.... I do not think the DEC is seeking this legislative approval and here is why I think that: This came out of Buffalo, far from moose country. And it likely was not 500 hunters who went in and talked to their legislators, it probably was one well connected person. I also think the DEC legislative Affairs Branch would have been able to get more than two sponsors, this was someone from Erie county.... If this passes, then the DEC would iron out the details, ie lottery permits and all that, - at which point there would probably be a public comment period before the regs are finalized. If the legislature was determining how hunting opportunity was distributed out (permit allocation) we really would be in trouble....

Well, I know someone wants to know who was behind it.... I don't have the answer, but I have some clues.... This one is easy to narrow down because there are only one sponsor in each house 20 miles apart, the senator in Buffalo and the assemblyman in east Aurora. So someone who lives and votes around Buffalo advocated or lobbied for it.... Not many moose in the Buffalo area.... So I would tend to believe this is ONE person or perhaps one group who own a hunting camp in moose country... Apparently, some dude or dudes who live around Erie County want a moose season......

Calling? Decoy carving?

Not a bad thing at all. But have you ever asked yourself who all is behind this?