mike rossi

Thanks to Will Elliot, Ray Merlo and the Putnam County Federation of Sportsmen for their generous contributions toward NY Dove Hunting's advertisement in the next the hunting and regulation guide! Will Elliot is an outdoor writer in the Buffalo/Niagara area and Ray Merlo is affiliated with the Putnam County Federation.

I have to correct that slightly.... 1) I assume, but am not sure, that NJ's non-game programs also receive general fund appropriations paid for by taxpayers. 2) In NJ, there still is ONE game program that is still 100% user paid - the state pheasant and northern bobwhite stocking program. And those who pay are the pheasant and bobwhite hunters - the program does NOT receive revenue from general license sales, deer permits, turkey permits, or bear permits. The program is paid for with a $40 stamp purchased by 12,000 hunters, and possibly with matching wildlife restoration grants.

Here are the latest numbers; 11.6 million “big game hunters” after deer, elk, turkey, bear generate $16.9 billion. 4.5 million “small game hunters” after pheasant, grouse, quail generate $2.6 billion. 2.6 million “migratory bird hunters” after doves, ducks, geese generate $ 1.8 billion. NJ and Vermont wildlife divisions because of the loss of participation in hunting can no longer be supported by hunting-related revenue and are running off of the general fund and tax payers who do not hunt are not happy about it. I would say that the $4.4 billion from upland and migratory bird hunting, or even just the $1.8 billion derived from migratory birds is not something wildlife agencies sneeze at....

So, what you are saying is that you believe that deer hunting is safe because of the revenue it generates; other forms of hunting are vulnerable, therefore all new hunters should deer hunt, private land is needed to hunt deer, a demand will be created for private land, and those not being able to afford to lease private land will quit hunting. Too bad when they quit they cant just go hunt waterfowl, pheasant or doves.....

http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/what-ny-dove-hunting-does.html

Currently, as far as I know, there is a special permit you can get in NY to train bear dogs, but you are not allowed to kill them, it is a chase only season. Within the past year, the DEC revised its black bear management plan. The plan had indicated that the DEC is considering allowing hounds, bait, and foot snares to harvest bears. The summary of public comments, if I remember correctly, had only around five statements given by antis. The mute swan plan, opened for comment about a year prior, received well over 30,000 comments from antis. The public comment response from antis on fairly recent proposals to expand seasons such as river otter trapping and bobcat trapping, also has been light by comparison to the mute swan plan. Currently, there is legislation to create a year-round coyote hunting season. The DEC is opposed to year-round coyote harvest, however if this passed the Legislature, and forced the DEC to allow year-round coyote hunting, I would not be surprised if the antis take it to the court room. Notice that there has been no attempt to contest the the mute swan plan in court. That is likely because they do not have a good cause of action. The attorneys for the antis will adjust the strategy on a state by state and species by species basis. There is no referendum vote in NY, and I am sure the mute swan case, unlike the case against hunting with bear hounds, would be rejected by a court. So they knew the best weapon in NY was public outcry and the Legislature, so that is how they attacked. Hiring PCI Consultants and running TV ads ("Dave the Dove"), as the HSUS did in Michigan, or other campaigns to gain enough petitions to put the issue on the ballot, would not be effective in NY, because NY does not have referendums. The HSUS spent $2 million on TV ads in Michigan, in NY, unless their best strategy is the courtroom, they spend nothing, just go to the Legislature... I am not saying we would be better off with referendums, because we would not, we would be screwed. I am just showing how they operate differently in different states.

So are real hens effective at calling mature toms. Therefore, a hunter might stalk another hunter who is using a hen call or move closer to him. Especially if the calling hunter is getting a response from a gobbler.

I will answer my own question. I disagree with Steve's implication. Staff attorneys for the DEC incorporate fighting these legal maneuvers into their daily work, they are not working late and weekends and submitting over time pay nor are they outside attorneys billing the DEC. State Conservation Agencies are in court all the time, whether it is hunting issues or any of the myriad of environmental issues, lets be serious here... Also, the HSUS probably has enough money to outspend the DEC Bureau of Wildlife, if they wanted to. Why don't they invest in banning squirrel hunting? The HSUS is a business, and to sustain their income, they need to sustain controversy. To sustain their lucrative business, they must kill hunting slowly. Never the less, in any organization or movement, there are individuals true to the cause. Those people want hunting ceased as soon as possible, but know it must be done incrementally.

First, please send me info about the hound injunction (lawsuit), I did not hear about that. Second, opposition to the recent bear plan was nothing compared to the public outcry against the mute swan plan. Comments from antis was relatively light. The summary of public comments was online, it probably still is, although the DEC does not keep them up forever. I started to answer Doc about clarifying his context regarding "whose science"; but I decided not to go down this path again. If people want to bash science, then they need to pin down their premises to one context, not throw out wide generalizations comprised of several different meanings. You are correct - the DEC does NOT set regulations. The DEC informs the Legislature which is who sets the regulations. The Legislature may or may not heed the DEC's recommendations. Sometimes the legislature gives the nod to public outcry and/or organizations instead of to the DEC recommendations. Politics are indeed part of conservation policy, when we say they shouldn't be, does not mean that they are not - the current system certainly is set up to be politically-driven.

So could buck hunting. If one argues people are accepting of deer hunting for ecological reasons, consider that shooting bucks of any age class does not fit into the concept. Population control or reduction is achieved by doe harvest....

Did you see the last bear plan? The DEC is indeed entertaining hounds, foot snares, and bait for bear. But I agree with what you say regarding , a "right to hunt." That would not guarantee "cart'e blanch" any form of hunting, nor should it.

That is great, we need all the press we can get!

That makes sense; but according to what I am understanding from Steve's post here, I think he is saying that a state will only put out so much for other game, but is willing to outspend the HSUS for whitetail. Do you buy that? Or does Steve mean something else?

As MR JVP said, this is about ballot referendums. About 20 states use this system, fortunately, NY is not one of them. I dont know if this will fly without just reversing their whole referendum law, I dont see how you can prevent someone or some organization from influencing voters in your state. In Michigan, a referendum ballot was used to repeal their dove season only 2 years after it was reinstated. Some hunters in Michigan asked, well what would happen if whitetail deer hunting went to referendum? It only takes petition signatures to get a referendum put on the ballot in the general election. It is therefore feasible for whitetail deer hunting to be up for referendum vote in any of the twenty-some referendum states. On the dove issue in Michigan, antis got about 60 % of the vote; in the last Maine bear referendum, the state was split almost 50-50, there was NOT a big landslide victory as advertised, that is why the HSUS is planning to try a third time. California also had many hunting-related referendums. Does anyone think whitetail deer hunting will ever be put to a referendum vote anywhere in the USA? Why or why not?

I would say stalking and intercepting are different. If you (think) you are stalking a turkey, you are really stalking a turkey hunter's call or his decoy. Stalking is dangerous, and although intercepting might not be quite as dangerous; if you are trying to intercept a bird on public land you are being discourteous to other hunters.

I think a survey of one time hunters and hunters who just completed their first season of hunting is the best source of info for guiding recruitment efforts. "To escape my wife" or "it was passed to me by my father" is not very good bait to attract new hunters... Michael Pollan and those types appear to be very seductive to non hunters and basically have created a movement.

Well this year Sheldon Silver is out, Mark Grisanti is out, we got a new assembly encon chair and a new senate encon chair. Seems like a more favorable climate to me...

Possibly the legal concept of preemtion, consult an attorney...

And, if you work weekdays, as most do, you only have one day in Pa because Sunday hunting is prohibited for 99% of the game. That restriction increases the payoff for people who chose to harass hunters and decreases the likelihood they will get caught. The video, however, is not only showing hunter harassment, it is also showing hunters trespassing and being discourteous or just plain dumb. Another thing, hunting is a lonely activity. Half of the people that hunt like to gab, I am not so sure those people are really cut out for hunting. Sometimes people will come up to you like that seemingly unaware of any wrong doing.

Well, the person who sent me this, Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, is one of our good politicians. I prefer not to endorse nor disfavor politicians, however, part of the reason I posted this was to credit him and help him pass along his message. Lalor was one of only 25 lawmakers who made an informed vote about mute swans last June. He also is a likely sponsor or co-sponsor of the next NY mourning dove hunting bill. He voted against the safe act as well.

Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor For Immediate Release April 16, 2015 Contact: Chris Covucci - (845) 309-2654 Poughkeepsie City Council's Anti-Second Amendment Bill Would Limit Right to Self-Defense Poughkeepsie, NY - (4/16/15) - Poughkeepsie Mayor John Tkazyik ®, Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor (R,C,I - East Fishkill), Poughkeepsie City Council Minority Leader Lee David Klein ® and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association hosted a press conference exposing the Poughkeepsie City Council's anti-Second Amendment proposal today. The City Council's bill would create unnecessary and unconstitutional gun storage requirements that would significantly limit a homeowner's ability to defend against a criminal intruder. "This the is typical feel-good, anti-gun legislation that does nothing to stop crime or get illegal guns off the streets," said Assemblyman Lalor. "This bill is driven by politics, not good policy. New York already has safe storage requirements and this bill goes further to require the gun be made inoperable. The Supreme Court, in Heller v. District of Columbia, has already ruled unconstitutional laws that require a firearm in a home be disassembled and unable to be used for self-defense. A New York court also declared this type of regulation unconstitutional in Colaiacovo v. Dormer. The City Council should drop it's political theater show if it's serious about stopping crime." "The City Council's unconstitutional proposal isn't about stopping crime, its political pandering to the anti-Second Amendment crowd," said Mayor Tkazyik. "We have a Constitutional right to bear arms and that includes the defense of one’s home and family against an assailant. This ordinance makes self-defense impossible. It will increase crime as criminals learn that law-abiding homeowners are defenseless. The ordinance will also needlessly cost taxpayers when the city is forced to hire attorneys to defend a provision that the Supreme Court has already declared unconstitutional." "The City Council is going to prevent homeowners from defending themselves and their families with this bill," said Jacob Reiper, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Vice President of Legislative Affairs. "A homeowner needs to quickly access his firearm to prevent a tragedy when an intruder breaks in. The law will prevent residents from defending themselves. This kind of law has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It is an infringement on Poughkeepsie residents' Second Amendment rights. Residents will be left less safe if this bill is passed." "The anti-Second Amendment majority on the City Council is advancing a political agenda that doesn't make the City safer," said Poughkeepsie City Council Minority Leader Lee David Klein. "They're trying to score a few political points, while their policy makes families less safe and infringes on our Second Amendment rights. We should be pursuing policies that fight crime, not policies that leave residents vulnerable. ### Assemblyman Kieran Michael Lalor, a former teacher at Our Lady of Lourdes in Poughkeepsie, is a Marine Corps veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel. Lalor is of counsel to the law firm Gaines, Novick, Ponzini, Cossu & Venditti. He is a graduate of John Jay High School, Providence College and Pace Law School and lives in Hopewell Jct. with his wife Mary Jo and their four young children Katie, Riley, Mikey and Kieran Jr..

Thanks, PM sent. I just saw this on Google Alerts, by the way.

And how would they base that decision? On how many deer they believe should be on their property or how many they would like to harvest? A landowner can let as many hunters on his property as he wants, and if he is an agriculture producer, can get a liberal amount of depredation tags. So, a landowner, to a certain extent, does indeed have the ability to do what you are advocating...

http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/free-targets.html

Most people including most hunters, do not know what wildlife management means. Those lands should be renamed habitat management areas. Second, Multi Use Areas are not the same as WMAs. However, prime habitat exists on some MUAs, those lands should be re -designated as WMAs.