mike rossi

Changing the gender ratio in the population structure will cure all the social and biological issues. Figure out how to achieve more bucks to does and much is solved. That gender ratio means BOTH greater hunter satisfaction AND lower deer densities. The obvious best way to do that is by shooting. If the hunters wont do that, then the state will either have to do it themselves or open up deer to legal market hunting. Market hunting is being discussed across the USA for some time now, and dont be surprised when your nras and scopes catch up and act like they got some fresh news scoop.... I dont know why the DEC is proposing the archers do the job. For all we know, the DEC's survey data might show that most bowhunters agree with that. The magazine/magazines and hunting forum chatter might beg to differ, but most hunters are not readers or organized, only the DEC has their contact info and can contact them or allow Cornell HDU to contact them. Or, the DEC might think the archers are actually better hunters? Or younger hunters who are going to sustain this regime longer? These days I wont rule out anything, but I wont automatically believe the DEC is out to punish the archers...

I would assume the DEC - it has a narrow range of uses, all of which is under them. Did you mean the environmental protection fund? That is not protected from sweeping. They can get their hands on that money.

BOW funds are protected from "sweeping" by NY state finance law. If NY breaks its own law, they forfeit federal funding, indefinitely. Most states BOW are funded about 75% by hunters dollars. The other 25 % comes from non game programs that also do not come from the general fund. NY does a little better than 75% due to all the licenses and land. Again, that money cannot fund the bridge and all that..... Mute swans are not federally regulated. They are not native, not migratory, and not endangered or threatened, therefore they are not managed by the FWS. The FWS has no part in the NY mute swan management plan. I will give you the example you are asking for: the states BOW fund is so healthy, that every other state office borrows from it via the the short term investment pool (stip). You can thank those (politicians and sportsmen) who set up lifetime licenses in a separate account several years ago.

I will put my 2 cents in. BOW is not broke, and it would not violate anything if the state used BOW money for non lethal strategies. Recently, because of public outcry, the state redesigned its mute swan management plan to favor non lethal strategies. Part of the revised plan did call for local governments and/or animal rights organizations to foot some of the bill to implement and administer these strategies.

I think he is being sarcastic or he is trying to see how much you all know. This is a complex topic. The Legislature tells the DEC "what" it can regulate. Once given approval, then the DEC can set regulations. So, it is partially true that the Legislature, not the DEC sets hunting policy, not the DEC. For example, the legalization of crossbows required approval by the Legislature, however, once that approval was granted, then the DEC was authorized to set a crossbow hunting season. The DEC, or more specifically, the BOW, is theoretically supposed to make recommendations to the Legislature. However, politicians, especially republicans, don't like science. As a result. stakeholder input at the legislative level guides policy more than does the DEC/BOW. Those stakeholders may be hunters or anti hunters. Sometimes it includes nature enthusiasts that do not identify as either hunters or anti hunters. Once the DEC/BOW has authority to regulate a weapon or a species as game, the politics do not end. Stakeholder input continues at the regulation setting level when the DEC/BOW receives public comment. This is complex and interesting, because it appears the system was originally designed so that the Legislature is guided by the DEC/BOW, and then afterward, the DEC/BOW considers stakeholder input in finalizing regulations. Another paradox is the use of citizen advisory boards. These boards consist of a couple of "ex-offico" members, those who are politicians and those who work for the DEC. The remainder of these board members are appointed by other politicians. How those people are chosen is also interesting - politicians consult with hunting organizations. Perhaps this explains why the hunting community in NY gives out so many "awards" ? People receiving these awards usually end up on these boards. So, under the umbrella of the NY State Conservation Council is the NY State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, under their umbrella is every County federation of SC, and under their umbrella is most rod and gun clubs existing in the respective county. Who runs these organizations, whether a rod and gun , county fed, state fed, or the conservation council, - ELECTED people. So within the hunting community itself their is a FUBR web of elections and appointments. The Legislature and/or Governor makes "appointments" to various advisory boards at the recommendations of the (organized) hunting community. The Commissioner of the DEC is appointed by the Governor. So keep all that in mind every time you decide to second guess the DEC - BOW. The Legislature and most hunting organizations do not consider the DEC - BOW the best source of guidance. Advisory boards are chosen by hunting organizations and politicians. If your public comment resonates with the organizations, you help seal the deal in many cases, even if the DEC - BOW does not agree. If you do not bother to participate in public comment, then you are going with the flow, even if the flow is driven by anti hunters. Slightly off topic, the system doesn't really make sense in regard to species. The DEC - BOW is automatically entrusted to manage any species as non-game, but to manage any species as game, it requires Legislative approval. Go figure....

http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/national-hunting-and-fishing-day-petition---ny.html

Legislative Alert from NY Dove Hunting: The "Refuge From Cruel trapping Act" H.R. 2016 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114hr2016ih/pdf/BILLS-114hr2016ih.pdf S. 1081 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1081is/pdf/BILLS-114s1081is.pdf

Mr. VJP likes to comment about things he has not even bothered to read. His word you know, don't bother to click on the very report the thread is discussing. Below is the section about NJ: New Jersey Spring wild turkey hunting 1981 Gubernatorial Election Year: YES 1981 Governor Brenden Byrne: Democrat 1981 Senate Majority: Democrat 1981 Assembly Majority: Democrat Fall wild turkey hunting season 1997 Gubernatorial Election Year? YES 1997 Governor Christie Todd Whitman: Republican 1997 Senate Majority: Republican 1997 Assembly Majority: Republican New Jersey Black Bear Black Bear reinstated 2003 Gubernatorial Election Year: No Governor: Jim McGreevey, Democrat Senate Majority: Even, no majority Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: Black Bear Closed 2004 Gubernatorial Election Year: No Governor: Acting Governor Richard J. Codey Senate Majority: Democrat Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: FYI: DEP Commissioner closed black bear hunting season. NJ hunting community, assumedly the NJ Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, filed a court challenge which was rejected by the court. NJ DEP argued: 1) “NJ has a variety of legal game to hunt”. 2) NJ residents wishing to hunt black bear can do so in other states”. The Court ruled in favor of the DEP, stating that “the plaintiffs did not show irreparable injury to hunters”. However, an appeals court ruled against the DEP, citing that the NJ DEP Commissioner overstepped his/her authority. Black Bear Closed 2006 Gubernatorial Election Year: No Governor: Jon Corzine, Democrat Senate Majority: Democrat Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: Lisa Jackson FYI: The exact details about what occurred next are unclear until further investigation can be completed. It is known that Chris Christie was campaigning for Governor and during his campaign he pledged to reinstate the black bear season. Christie was elected and he did indeed reinstate the bear season in 2010. Perhaps the hunting community did not want to incur or was unable to incur, more legal expenses. Or, perhaps members of the Fish and Game Council who are appointed by the Governor did not want to act contradictory to the Corzine administration. Black bear Reinstated 2010 Gubernatorial Election Year: No, election was 2009, however action related to election as it was a campaign promise. Governor: Chris Christie, Republican Senate Majority: Democrat Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: FYI: When Chris Christie was campaigning for Governor he pledged to reinstate the black bear season. Christie was elected and he did indeed reinstate the bear season in 2010. Northern Bobwhite Closed 2011 Gubernatorial Election year? No Governor: Chris Christie, Republican Senate Majority: Democrat Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: FYI: Citing an adult mortality rate of 91.4%, of which hunting accounting for 2.9%; NJ DEP closed the season for northern bobwhite; except on two state-stocked wildlife management areas, and on currently licensed commercial shooting preserves. The DEP indicates, per the state’s northern bobwhite conservation plan, that the conservation status of the state’s northern bobwhite would be reviewed in three years, assumedly meaning in 2014. Mourning Dove Reclassified as Game Species with a Closed Hunting Season 2012 Gubernatorial Election year? No Governor: Chris Christie, Republican Senate Majority: Democrat Assembly Majority: Democrat DEP Commissioner: FYI: This reclassification authorized the Fish and Game Council to set a hunting season for mourning doves since January 2012; but the Council has not acted. Under NJ’s system, the Fish and Game Council may enact any regulation which passes by the Legislature. The DEP does not set the regulations, nor does the Legislature. The DEP merely makes recommendations; lawmakers pass laws as they see fit, and it is then up to the Council to motion them into regulation or not to. The (*)Fish and Game Council is comprised of seven persons appointed by the Governor from the six from the hunting/fishing community; three from the agriculture community; one public member “knowledgeable about land use practices and soil conservation;” and the Chairperson of the Endangered and Nongame Species Committee. This is an unpaid, voluntary staff. The Council is not employed by the DEP nor are they wildlife biologists. Through personal communication from one source employed by the DEP and two members of the NJ hunting community, we were informed that there was discussion about reinstating a mourning dove hunting season as a “replacement” for the closed northern bobwhite season. We were further told that the hunting community and the DEP have a shared concern over litigation by anti-hunting organizations if a mourning dove season was reinstated; and as a result of that concern, a mutual decision was made to not reinstate the season. We find that incredulous for several reasons. First, both entities were not only willing to take bear hunting to court against anti- hunters; but the hunting community and the DEP even went to court against each other in 2004, with the sportsmen not even giving up on a lower Court’s decision and filing an appeal. Perhaps they ran out of money fighting each other over black bears there was no money left for litigation over doves? That is actually what has been implied. Second, no verifiable proof has been provided that this decision was made by the entire hunting community, rather than a few who are connected to organizations, the Division, or the Council. Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but wise, to assume this was a decision made by a few, without transparency. (*)FISH and GAME COUNCIL The Fish and Game Council, appointed by the Governor, oversees the Division's operations and appoints a Director (subject to the Governor's approval). The council meets monthly. History The Fish and Game Council was created by Law in 1945 (N.J.S.A.13:1B-24) and succeeded the former Board of Fish and Game Commissioners. The Fish and Game Council was transferred to the Department of Conservation in 1948 and its powers were to be "exercised and performed through the Division of Fish and Game in the department." The Division of Fish and Game was placed under the supervision of a director who was given the power to "administer the work of such Division under the direction and supervision of the commissioner." The commissioner in turn was charged by the legislature with the responsibility for the administration of the work of the department, to appoint and remove officers and other personnel and to generally perform all of the executive functions necessary to administer the department. Composition This law established the composition of the Council as follows: three members of council shall be farmers, recommended to the Governor for appointment by the agricultural convention; six members shall be sportsmen, recommended to the Governor for appointment by the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs; and two members shall be commercial fishermen. One farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Warren; one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives in the council shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Somerset and Union; and one farmer representative and two sportsmen representatives shall be chosen from among residents of any of the following counties - Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. With the creation of the Marine Fisheries Council in 1979, the commercial fishing representatives were replaced on the Fish and Game Council with the Chairman of the Endangered and Nongame Species Advisory Committee and a public member "knowledgeable in land use management and soil conservation practices." Powers and Duties The Legislature has empowered the Fish and Game Council with the independent responsibility to adopt a Fish and Game Code for the purpose of providing a system for the protection and conservation of fish and game. In addition, the Council has been authorized to perform an advisory and recommendatory function in the development of comprehensive policies in this general area and to: a. Consult with and advise the Commissioner and director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife with respect to the work of such Division. b. Study the activities of the Division of Fish and Wildlife and hold hearings with respect thereto as it may deem necessary or desirable. c. Report to the Governor and the Legislature annually, and at such other times as it may deem in the public interest with respect to its findings and conclusions. The council appoints the director who is required to be a "person with special training and experience in wildlife management". The council's appointment is subject to the approval of the Governor and the director can only be removed by action of the Governor. The sole responsibility for the executive administration of the Division of Fish and Wildlife has been placed in the Director of the Division subject to the direction and supervision of the Commissioner. Therefore, Council has no authority under the statutes to issue administrative or executive directives to either the commissioner or the director. This analysis of the governing statutory provisions has been reinforced by a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Humane Society, supra. Although the issue in that case was concerned with the composition and membership of the Council, the court had occasion to comment on its unique and specialized responsibilities: "The Fish and Game Council is invested with certain regulatory powers aimed at protecting and developing an adequate supply of fish and game for recreational and commercial purposes. These powers are expressed primarily by the Council's determinations as to when and where in the State hunting and fishing shall take place, and which freshwater fish, game birds, game animals, and fur bearing animals may be taken and in what numbers. The wildlife thus regulated is those animals which are the focus of the sports of hunting and fishing. In addition, the Council supervises a program of wildlife propagation, the expenses of which are supported by fees for hunting and fishing licenses paid for by sportsmen and commercial fishermen" Therefore, the Council's essential and primary responsibility as noted by the Supreme Court is aimed at protecting and developing an adequate supply of fish and game for recreational and commercial purposes. This limited responsibility is implemented through adoption of the Fish Code and the Game Code and in the development of comprehensive policies for the consideration of the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, the Governor and the Legislature. Current Members (April 2015) Fish and Game Council Dave Burke, Acting Chair Cathy Blumig Phillip Brodhecker Dr. Barbara Brummer Joseph Demartino Agust Gudmundsson Joe DeMartino Jeffrey Link Robert Puskas Dan Van Mater Vacant ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 3, 2015 Contact: Bob Considine (609) 292-2994 Lawrence Hajna (609) 984-1795 NEW JERSEY FISH AND GAME COUNCIL APPROVES PROPOSED UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE BLACK BEAR MANAGEMENT POLICY (15/P18) TRENTON – Based upon research by the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, the New Jersey Fish and Game Council today approved a proposed updated Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy that continues the annual December hunt, adds an October hunt beginning in 2016, and calls for enhanced public education efforts in parts of the state that are experiencing black bear encounters for the first time, among other measures. “The annual hunting season in the northwestern part of the state has been an important tool in a comprehensive plan designed to control the bear population and reduce conflicts between bears and people,” said Division of Fish and Wildlife Director David Chanda. “The comprehensive policy proposed today continues to stress the importance of research and public education, and is based on the most up-to-date science and population estimates.” Specifically, the proposed Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy unanimously approved today: Continues the annual six-day December firearm hunting season. The hunt may be extended by up to four days if poor weather or other conditions result in a reduced harvest. This year’s hunt will begin December 7. Adds an additional six-day October hunting season beginning in 2016, three days for bow hunting only and three days for bow hunting and hunting with muzzle loading guns. The bow hunting season will enable hunting of nuisance bears that can be difficult to hunt by gun in certain areas. Increases the allowable per-hunter harvest from one bear to two bears beginning next year, provided the first bear is taken during October bow/muzzle loading hunt and the second is taken during the December firearm hunt. Increases, effective this year, the current zones in which hunting is permitted to include the remainders of Hunterdon, Somerset and Morris counties, a small additional portion of Passaic County, and a small portion of Mercer County. This will help control the population in areas where reports of bear and human encounters have been increasing due to bears expanding their habitat. Calls for work toward developing an estimate for a statewide bear population. Reemphasizes the importance of ongoing public education efforts, trash management and research. Efforts will be focused on urban areas and parts of the state where bears are expanding their range. The proposed policy, which will be opened to public comment and a public hearing, was developed after extensive research of five bear hunting seasons that have taken place since 2010. The Division has concluded that expanded hunting opportunities are necessary to reduce the size of the population and reduce conflicts with people. Research over the past five years that included surveys, captures of previously tagged bears, den studies, reproduction analyses and density analyses confirm that northwestern New Jersey continues to have one of the nation’s densest black bear populations. The Division of Fish and Wildlife utilized studies conducted by Penn State University along with widely accepted population estimate methodologies known as the Lincoln-Petersen Index and linear regression modeling to conservatively estimate the size of the black bear population in northwestern New Jersey at 3,500, about the same as when the hunt was first authorized in 2010. The population has not decreased significantly because reproduction rates, known as recruitment, have exceeded mortality from hunting and natural causes. The number of bears harvested in the five hunts has steadily dropped from 592 in the first season, to less than 300 animals in subsequent seasons, due in large part to poor weather at that time of year and a more wary bear population. In addition, the December hunt coincides with the time when bears are becoming less active and beginning to den. The December hunt, coinciding with the annual firearm deer hunting season, was purposely planned for this time of year to be conservative as biologists assessed the first five years of hunting. The hunting zone as approved in 2010 encompassed a roughly 1,000-square-mile area of northwestern New Jersey north of Interstate 78 and west of Interstate 287. This area includes all or portions of Hunterdon, Passaic, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, and Warren counties, and a small portion of Bergen County. This area is home to the majority of the state’s black bears. While the December hunting season appeared to be helping to reduce overall nuisance complaints, the numbers increased in 2014, probably due to lower-than-expected harvest numbers and population increases due in part to black bear reproduction rates that are higher than in other parts of the nation. The number of bear-human interactions in the northwestern part of the state increased from 1,231 to 1,951 over the past year, a 60 percent increase. The new policy proposed today continues to emphasize the importance of public education and research to reduce conflicts and strives to maintain a sustainable and robust bear population, recognizing its importance as a natural resource valued by the residents of the state and as being important to ecological balance. Future re-adoption cycles for the policy will coincide with seven-year Game Code re-adoption cycles. The Fish and Game Council met at the Assunpink Wildlife Management Area office in Upper Freehold. The proposed policy will be sent to Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin, who must approve the policy before it is published in the New Jersey Register and opened for a 60-day public comment period and public hearing. The New Jersey Fish and Game Council is a volunteer board that is mandated by law to create and finalize hunting and fishing regulations that manage wildlife resources for the benefit of all residents. The Council’s Game Committee and the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife thoroughly reviewed all available data in making recommendations for the proposed policy changes. The Council may make changes based on comments before taking a final vote to approve the policy later this year. For more information on black bears in New Jersey and a copy of the proposed Comprehensive Black Bear Management Policy, please visit: http://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/bearfacts.htm _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And, I did read the above links. I find it interesting that Audubon fired him (or stopped buying his free lance writing) because of the house cat piece, but was fine and continues to be fine, with implied negativity about not only hunting, but hunters themselves. Another thing that is interesting, is that Audubon has indeed made statements favoring the control of feral and/or free ranging cats. I agree, however, Williams went overboard, recommending a euthanasia cocktail of Tylenol, which was not only unnecessary to get the message across, but out of his area of expertise. I probably agree with Audubon that he has been over the top, I dont understand however, why did their editor allow such to be published. Seems they rely on comment from their readership to be the editor after the fact. That might be indicative of the Audubon Societies MO to be politically correct. If you please the majority of the people, you are not being scientific, fact of life. Leave the people pleasing to the politicians, just the facts please.... I wonder how Williams did as information officer for Massachusetts DNR (DEC)....

I don't think he is the only journalist whose column can be titled "INCITE." He really did a bang up job on this one though.

Our report provides no evidence supporting the notion that either side of the aisle is easier to work with; and even if it did, we need to work with both. We are not endorsing either party, but want to point out that it is very clear that democrats in NY and in other states do not mean a death sentence to pro-hunting legislation. Hunting seasons have been reinstated with every combination, including democratic trifectas. There have also been many failures to reinstate seasons when republicans have had full control. Some bans have occurred under republicans as well, perhaps more. If I thought it was important to tally up a scorecard, I would have researched every reinstated hunting season and graphed the results. Even the use of dogs for bear in 1990 was approved by Mario Cuomo and the Legislature, it was a judge who sided with the ASPCA in a law suit and overturned the law and banned it the same year. This was not a case of the ASPCA buying politicians. In fact, the ASPCA sued politicians over this. Mario Cuomo and the DEC Commissioner were named as defendants in the lawsuit. Restated for clarity: In 1990 the ASPCA sued Mario Cuomo over the legalization of hunting bears with dogs. Cuomo did not roll over either, the case went to hearing, however, the judge sided with the ASPCA. If you are interested in the reason for the court decision it was because the new law was in conflict with an existing law prohibiting use of dogs to hunt big game. They messed up, if they had changed that law as well, the ASPCA would not have had a strong case. Before you call the DEC, the former governor, and Legislature dummies, be advised this has happened in a number of states. Many times, attorneys for anti hunting organizations have been known to do a better job at scrutinizing the existing laws then do state lawmakers and wildlife agencies. The most interesting finding of this is that about an equal number of wild turkey hunting and mourning dove hunting seasons have been reinstated. While mourning dove hunting was contested in every state, even South Dakota, we did not come across any effort to block the reinstatement of wild turkey hunting. If turkey populations crash again, warranting a closure, don't be over confident and expect them to be reopened without a fight next time. The expansion of wild turkeys from the restoration is now seen as a negative impact and the first restoration was paid for with Pittman Robertson grants along with license revenue. Expect some push back.

I think the author was artful and tricky the way he justified (tolerance) of deer hunting while layering it with negative innuendo about hunters, the political influence of deer hunters, and negativity about other forms of hunting.... (Including, but not limited to, the comment about "a baited mourning dove shoot" - which FYI is prohibited by both federal and state law)... Some call that political correctness considering his readership, but if you explained things that way to your children or to students it is called something else... Whether that tone reflected his personal viewpoint or not, he should have been more professional in getting his message across. Speaking of professional, his information was good enough, but he was not entirely accurate. Also, although "story telling" is considered a communication skill, I think he took the story telling a little too far as well, including his comments about Alt...

We are talking about hunting, not gun rights.... 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

Not sure what happened to my poll, oh well....

This article was published in 2005 by the Audubon Society; however it is not outdated. http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0507.html

Never mind.

Here is the "411" on Flanagan: http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/john-j-flanagan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._Flanagan http://ballotpedia.org/John_J._Flanagan https://www.facebook.com/SenatorJohnFlanagan

1) A NY bill in both chambers relating to feral cats is pending. The New York State Legislature is currently considering the fate of Assembly Bill 2728 and Senate Bill 01081 that, if enacted, would authorize the systematic abandonment of feral cats through the program known as Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR). As written,legalizes the release of feral cats into the environment and uses public money to fund the program. This bill threatens wildlife and undermines public health. An abundance of scientific studies have shown that TNR does not effectively reduce feral cat populations, facilitates the predation of wildlife by non-native cats, and raises considerable human health risks. Here are a few facts. Outdoor cats kill an estimated 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals in the United States every year. Unfortunately, feeding cats does not suppress their instinctive predatory drive. Cats have been the number-one carrier of rabies among domestic animals since 1992. Cats are the only definitive host of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which causes toxoplasmosis in humans and other warm-blooded species when ingested or inhaled. Toxoplasmosis has been linked to schizophrenia and can lead to miscarriages, memory loss, and death. Please take a moment to contact Assembly Members to let them know that you support responsible cat management and to VOTE NO on Assembly Bill 2778 and Senate Bill 01081! Here are the actual bills: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01081&term=2015&Summary=Y&Text=Y Bills http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S01081&term=2015&Summary=Y&Text=Y 2) The Ruffed grouse Society has filed a legal challenge to compel the Forest Service to follow the law. http://ruffedgrousesociety.org/USFS%20petition#.VVG6R_lVikp Coraopolis, PA – The Ruffed Grouse Society (RGS) has filed a Petition for Rulemaking with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) due to the agency’s consistent failure to provide the young forest habitats required by the ruffed grouse, American woodcock, golden-winged warbler and other game and nongame wildlife on national forests throughout the eastern United States. “The failure of national forests in Regions 8 and 9 to meet even their own minimum goals for young forest habitats has contributed to substantial declines in the populations of game and nongame wildlife that depend upon these habitats.” said RGS President and CEO John Eichinger. According to Ryan Woody, an attorney representing RGS on the Petition from the firm of Matthiesen, Wickert and Lehrer, S.C., “The failure of the U.S. Forest Service to sustain young forest habitats sufficient to support viable populations of ruffed grouse and other wildlife that require these habitats on the Chattahoochee (GA), Hoosier (IN) and Sumter (SC) National Forests is a clear violation of regulations promulgated under the National Forest Management Act.” On other national forests in the east, wildlife populations that thrive only in young forests continue to decline. For example, the Wayne National Forest in Ohio has established only 2 percent of the young forest acreage identified as a minimum goal in its forest plan. The Jefferson National Forest in Virginia has established only 12 percent of the young forest acreage identified as a minimum goal, while the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee has established only 13 percent. “From the heart of ruffed grouse country in the Great Lakes region, to the historic covers of New England and the hills of the Appalachians, ruffed grouse and other wildlife of young forests have been poorly served by the Forest Service. RGS takes this step reluctantly, but has little alternative due to the Forest Service’s lack of response to our repeated efforts to work collaboratively,” continued Eichinger. “These deficiencies indicate a systemic problem that demands the attention of our most senior officials within the Forest Service.” Established in 1961, The Ruffed Grouse Society/American Woodcock Society is North America’s foremost conservation organization dedicated to preserving our sporting traditions by creating healthy forest habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock and other wildlife. RGS/AWS works with landowners and government agencies to develop critical habitat utilizing scientific management practices. Information on RGS/AWS, its mission, management projects and membership can be found at: www.ruffedgrousesociety.org. Media Contact: Matt Soberg RGS/AWS Editor & Director of Communications (218) 232-6227 [email protected]

Right now, they are entertaining three replacements. Next in line by seniority would be Tom Libous, however Libous is also facing federal charges and is in Florida being treated for cancer. Libious, by the way, voted initially to move the safe act, then after it was progressed, decided to vote against it. Skelos also was an important player in progressing the safe act. Another option is another Long Island republican, cant recall his name. Most likely to become the new Republican Senate Leader is John DeFrancisco representing the district around Syracuse. DeFrancisco voted AGAINST the safe act.... DeFrancisco introduced the state's most recent mourning dove hunting bill in 2010, but it expired without vote, debate, or discussion in 2012. Needless to say NY Dove Hunting endorses John DeFrancisco for republican leader!

Even if less permits were issued, the overwintered population of survivors might not necessarily be much larger. Instead of hunters taking them, more would just have starved. If there wasn't enough resources for a small post hunt population, there wouldn't be enough resources for a larger post hunt population. Even (IF) fewer permits resulted in better over winter survival, recovery of the population is not as intuitive as it seems either. The first thing to come to mind is a bigger base of doe means quicker recovery. Sometimes that is the case, but not always. A smaller over wintered population might have better reproduction than a larger overwintered population.

d

I will tell you what Steve, just because I don't like something does not mean I am going to lobby to limit it. And regardless of what others do, I continue to conduct myself within the law and considerate of my neighbors, other hunters, other drivers etc... However, you know what, when somebody who fails to be considerate of me, needs to be pulled or winched out, or in need of any other "favor" I tell them to take a hike, pun intended....

I don't like them and don't think the word atv , quad , or 4 wheeler belongs in the same sentence as hunting... Some people are not as physically able as others. We all grow old, I don't know what my profile says, but I will be 50. More athletic and fit then most in my thirties- but I already realized it was time to quit climbing trees to arrow a deer. In any sport you cant participate at the same level as you age or become sick or disabled. That doesn't mean you cant participate, it means not at the same level... Hunting is no different. The DEC cant make up its mind if there are 500,000 or 750,000 hunters in the state, what if 500,000 of them buzzed around on quads? Even legally on private land, would you like that? As far as rural life, many people play with their chainsaws all summer, claiming they need all this heating wood. OK, maybe they do. However, upstate neighbors commonly "patrol" their property borders on quads and create trails. Sometimes coming close to their neighbors house. That is a bunch of bull. These types are more interested in trespassing themselves and/or being nosy than keeping a watchful eye on their assets. I am not talking about one isolated anecdotal experience, this is common upstate, in many sections, its part of the upstate culture. As is when people build homes they almost always put their driveway were it passes right by their neighbor's house and/or is partially on the other persons land... A lot of what I call "county highway rural" people don't own much land, maybe a long, narrow 5 or 10 acres with a neighbor or neighbors less than 500 feet on either side. Everybody is a deer hunter on their own little strip, food plot and all. This is also contributing to all the tree stand on the fence and/or recovering deer on private property discussion on this forum. Stands and atv trails and posted signs on the property lines it really is ludicrous. If these people want to run their quads, who cares, unless they regularly pass your house. I also wonder how many of those machines are financed? Instead of shopping at the local gun shops, as in the past, people are making payments on their machines to banks from china and india? Everyone likes to talk economics, but nobody acknowledges this societal shift to borrowing for machines or autos from over seas lenders. Hunters are not spending locally on sporting goods and neither is the public at large buying whatever- they are paying off their credit lines to india... Imagine if we start spending 200 dollars a month at the local gun shop, like back in the old days, instead of making a machine payment to china? Does anyone seriously believe this is not a large part of the economic problem, as well as a factor in how hunting evolved into what it is today? Whatever, this topic is inherently an argument maker.

I would go with a multi-barel set. I would shy away from 410s. It may someday be considered handgun ammo; it is expensive, and the configuration of the shell creates poor patterning. I wouldn't even go with a 28, ammo for the off gauges: 410, 28, 16, and 10 are expensive and hard to find. Try to find a set with a 20 and 12 gauge and sell the third barrel. http://www.gundogmag.com/gear-accessories/tools_trade_shotguns_gd_multiple_0810/

Everyone thinks the game department (DEC) makes the decisions. However, it does not really work that way. The DEC makes recommendations to the legislature. I would tend to disagree with what you are implying, I believe the wildlife agency is most adept to make the best decisions. Except, you need to remember, that the agency will listen to the public as does the legislature. It is somewhat built into the system that they do, but that is not all good or all bad. For example, I will use NJ as an example again. Their system is actually a little different, because they have a politically appointed panel of 13 hunters and farmers known as the wildlife and fish council, who give the final approval on regulations, not the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife.... Actually, two commissioners of NJ Wildlife and Fish each banned the bear hunt. This is ironic and interesting for a number of reasons. (Commissioners are also politically appointed by the Governor, at the time Jon Corzine and one other governor were anti bear hunting and championed non lethal control) First, it would be like the DEC banning a season in NY. (However, I am not positive, but I believe in NY the commissioner can close a season, just cannot open or reinstate one, if so, it would be legal for he/she to do so). Second, these two NJ commissioners overstepped their authority... Most famous for agency heads overstepping has been in setting dove seasons, not in closing seasons. So common was this in the mid-western states, it was a goldmine for the Humane Society who rode series of victories for over 30 years and as a result everyone is confused about doves. For example, those lawsuits are raised as excuses to not pursue dove seasons - which is ridiculous, because these lawsuits were related to existing seasons that were improperly reinstated in a manner contrary to law. I want to add, however, since this flurry of litigation, only 9 states have not properly reinstated dove seasons. Third, and probably most ironic, it that to reinstate the bear season, NJ sportsmen filed a lawsuit against their state wildlife agency (the equivalent of the NY DEC). Hunters suing wildlife agencies is not unheard of, for example PA sportsmen unsuccessfully sued the PGC to establish Sunday Hunting just last year. The irony is that around the same time, organizations representing NJ hunters and the Division of Wildlife had reportedly decided not to set a dove hunting season, supposedly to avoid litigation by animal rights organizations. The cost of litigation was raised, however, as I have explained numerous times, that the legal expenses are compensatory to the state, not additive. The irony is in that both the state and the hunting organizations were willing to battle each other in court over bears, however. What makes this more egregious, is that the hunters and state reached a similar agreement in 2011 to close its hunting season for Northern bobwhite.(except hunting is still allowed on two WMAs that are stocked with 5,000 bobwhite and dog training on bobwhites is allowed on about 12 other wmas stocked with 800 bobwhite, the closure pertained to wild - hatched birds). Part of the "deal" was that when the bobwhite season was closed, a dove hunting season would be opened, never happened , although he state did reclassify the mourning dove as a game bird prior to this. FYI: the NJ bear hunting season gets a disproportionate amount of press and attention for what it is worth.... The state allows bear hunting to lottery chosen permit holders for 6 days concurrent with its firearm buck only deer season. in about 1,000 square miles (not a big area) and the harvest averages around 300 bears. The last few years, the division cant give away its quota of bear permits due to lack of interest.... Also, FYI, the bear season was reinstated by Governor Chris Christie, who made reinstating the season one of his campaign promises before being elected.