mike rossi

Not true. Unless you are petitioning to run for office in the primary election...

And there might be 100 other names you don't know, but you know what to shoot and what not to shoot.... How many hunters can tell a fish crow from an American crow? How many even know they existed?

As we do in duck hunting...

Part of the fun is identifying your target. Its also part of duck hunting. Even the dogs learn to identify birds, by both sound and sight...

They are migratory, so even if the focus is wintering goldens in NY, perhaps you can ask a different state to apply for a PR grant to fund this study? That is purely a guess, but I would be interested in the answer....

I got the following e-mail from Fred Neff this morning. Fred was/is involved with the NYSCC and his local federation. He is credited with being the impetus for the NY voluntary habitat and access stamp. Fred also has been a long-time advocate of dove hunting for NY and a key player in it, A change was made to PA's mourning dove season this fall. Can you guess what it was? Well, they added 20 more days to the total season length (including split seasons) - up from 70 days to 90 days. This was the result of a new national dove harvest strategy cooperatively developed by state wildlife agencies and the USFWS that resulted in the 20 day addition in positively affected states in the Eastern Management Unit (EMU) - the 27 easternmost states - whenever dove populations in the EMU exceed 36.5 million birds. Recent EMU dove populations estimates of 95 million doves far exceeded that goal, PA will add their 20 additional days to the front end of the season. And what does NY get? Zero! Nada! Why? Do I really have to go there at this point? The kindest thing I will say at this point is "uninformed state legislators". While we present hard scientific facts and data that proves that sound dove management at both state and federal level (remember that the dove is considered a migratory game bird by the USFWS) poses no threat to dove populations due to hunting, NY legislators (especially our downstate Big Apple who could care less about the matter but have the vote) who fear for their political lives continue to listen to the utterly emotional drivel of our anti-dove friends. I could list a lot, but I'll just list two of the many personal favorites that I've encountered over the years here: "You've driven them to extinction once and they're just coming back". "NY will have major power outages from hunters shooting doves on power lines". Note - I'm still waiting for anyone to show me proof of that one". I've spent 50 years on this one in NY. And I wasn't, and am not, the only one involved in this for sportsmen. And I've heard it all and been through it all. But 40 out of the contiguous US states have a dove season; plus Ontario just opened a dove season. This pretty much sums it up - while on a visit to our home in Utica years ago, my cousin, Ted, from PA, when informed that we could not hunt doves in NY exclaimed, "What is wrong with these people; are they un-American?" What has to happen for NY to get their season is simple: DEC has got to stand up and take a strong a forceful lead in pushing for the reclassification. They hide behind the shield (probably out of fear for their pensions that would be jeopardized should they run afoul of the politicians and antis) that the legislature and the governor must first pass a law that reclassifies the dove as a migratory game bird and then they could saddle their horses and get it done (maybe - the tentacles of NY politics are many and wide). NY sportsmen have got to get off of their butts and show DEC that they will throw their whole weight behind this one as they have in items involving major issues of the day - deer management, habitat and access, etc. But when it comes to doves, we still are the silent majority. Most just don't understand the concept of dove hunting since they've never had it. They remain "underwhelmed" by, and resistant to, the concept. My continuing believe is that if DEC takes a lead role in this, and our states' sportsmen become interested enough to become educated, this will happen. Remember, the 8 states that resist a dove season are mostly northeast states where doves are not overly present. Deer, bear, and moose are. NY is unique in that it has everything in abundance. I once told a friend from the Adirondacks who told me that they don't see doves up there, "Hey, you want to see a dove, come down here to Central or Western NY; I'll show you at least 500 any evening that you want in the fall when the harvesting is going on and the migration is starting. And if I want to see a moose, I'll come up your way. Don't see much of them down here". I can't believe that I just wrote all of this. I think maybe I'm still a bit unrecovered from my bout with the flu. Fred.

I guess I my mind just wanders out into space when I hear the staffing / budget woes... Not sure I even know what I am talking about. I just found it interesting that a new combined account was formed within the CF. Boring topic, change the subject, what project were you advocating for if you dont mind saying?

Wait a second, I need to post-script that.... Are you confusing the state conservation fund with the state's PR eligibility award? Hoarding of the CF is related, but not the same, never the less it doesn't really alter the point or change the premise, but just want to be clear...

You are preaching to the choir, although I have been assuming not actually following, which is quite foolish I admit.... The state is eligible for that much grant money.... But to take advantage of it they need to devise restoration or conservation plans, apply for individual grants, and pledge matching cost share. If you are saying the state has received X dollars and has not launched certain initiatives for which they received grants,, that is different, and I would say that is another issue... Maybe the state requirements for the DEC to hire, an entirely different issue not related to PR funding, enters the equation? I dont really know or care, but I do care if the state is not taking advantage of conservation funding. If cfab or lobby opines somethng is "too green" because they don't have a clue, we are in a sorry state,,,,

"Nothing new"? That is all more reason to put an issue on the top of the pro-hunting agenda, not the other way around....

The DEC, the union of ornithologists,and others were listened to, he allowed science to guide his decision. FYI: We pointed out something to him that did resonate in his commentary about why he VETOED the bill. The governor was clearly aware that the DEC already did the things the law would have mandated (research, population survey, literature review); already included many of the strategies in its plan which the law would have mandated; and had agreed to adopt some of the strategies absent in the plan which were suggested during public review; thus was also aware that the law was obviously unnecessary and merely an attempt to control the DEC and empower animal rights organizations...

Yeah, we were side by side - 60,000 of them signed two petitions that made no sense at all and a tad over 300 signed ours that did make sense... And we got the nod...

Joe, I am not going to go back and find your post, but your statement that professionally conducted surveys and this one done by NYON are equally random is ridiculous. Do you really believe the NYON surveyed anyone outside it's readership? I will leave it there, no need to delve deeper, but I could point out a laundry list of disparities...

I am going to agree with you, except the writer specified in his case, he did it for the GOP. This post wasn't intended to bash them and/or imply it was only them who does this. I actually am questioning how prevalent this sort of thing actually is on web forums, not who does it or who does it the most.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread738780/pg1

You must be referring to this part: "This infusion of funding will enable DEC to match federal Pittman-Robertson funding that together will support 18 new DEC staff to undertake this work". You think people would be more interested in the actual projects rather than the jobs they create. Especially people who are being addressed about the DEC budget. That is kind of perverted. Obviously the commissioner has political savvy and knows what is palatable and what is not...

Below, in italics, is an extraction from the DEC Commissioner's 2015-16 budget testimony. The reason I extracted that part is because the rest of the testimony is not directly related to wildlife and fisheries. For those who want to read about other things in the DEC budget, here is the link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/budget2015.pdf Working with the Conservation Fund Advisory Board, the budget continues to build on Governor Cuomo’s Open for Fishing and Hunting initiative, which has reinvigorated New York as a hunting and fishing destination and boosted tourism opportunities throughout the state. The Executive Budget proposes to establish a new Habitat Conservation and Access Account which will consist of revenue from habitat stamps and a portion of the revenue from lifetime license sales to support the management, protection and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and related recreation. This infusion of funding will enable DEC to match federal Pittman-Robertson funding that together will support 18 new DEC staff to undertake this work.

Expanding on Post #31: The HSUS is indeed an animal rights and anti hunting organization. Even they have created a land trust and are buying land. With their enormous wealth that is no surprise it was only a matter of time. However, we assume conservation the strategy the HSUS is trying to impose on the world is the same they use on their own lands. Although that strategy would indeed conserve late succesion species and old growth habitat, it would not maximize biodiversity. Even failure to control deer populations lowers biodiversity... By stating that, I am not advocating against conserving old growth habitat, I am merely pointing out the deficiency with their ideology and their strategy. Contrast that strategy with Ducks Unlimited and the USFWS who acquire and preserve critical habitat in key areas, Land is not land... DU will also work with private landowners and take marginal agriculture land out of food production and into wildlife production. As we say "Farm the best and Conserve the rest"... What if the HSUS bought land in so-called CBAs (critical bird areas) or other critical habitat areas and refused to maintain a strategy that maintained habitat? Would the HSUS be an appropriate fit in the Golden Winged Warbler Joint Venture for example? That partnership includes many "green" groups, such as the ABA (american bird asociation). why not the HSUS? Making the distinction between preservation and conservation is on the right track, but it is an over simplification that doesnt provide enough insight. Gaining that insight and understanding is something to reflect on. Most wont delve into these important details and perhaps should not engage in debating about this. never the less, unless the HSUS wants to be only associated with ONLY Old Growth Conservation they need to accept other strategies. Furthermore, they will never gain acceptance among the conservation community and I mean Audubon types; with their one dimensional approach to conservation. It would also be difficult for them to partner with state or federal government agencies and conservation non profits for same reason. But they try - just this week the USFWS announced that the HSUS offered a $10,000 reward for information about a shooting of a bald eagle, so that qualifies as partnering with the Fish and Wildlife Service.... A lot to reflect on here, but its worth the time to give this some thought....

This is a third-party petition host site. We used it twice and so far, between both petitions with close to 1,000 total signatures, you are the third person to raise this. First, of all, no matter who takes credit for the recent VETO of the mute swan law that was passed almost anonymously by the senate and assembly, NYDH's petition was a significant impact. If it was our petiton and our outreach which informed and engaged others. And that is what the goal of NYDH is to advise and engage stakeholders and policy makers, not to drive politics and lay claim to "credit" for achieved goals. Secondly, people involved in causes often are indeed advocates of animal rights. People that hunt have not yet started to exploit electronic petitions. The host site has no reason to add a category "Pro Hunting". Did this site (hunting ny dot com) adopt my suggestion to add forums covering dog training, dove hunting, and conservation? No they did not, I was told stick it in small game... Its not big enough... NYDH can pay the petition site for advertising and to push its petitions, Just like the other groups, But where is that money coming from, the bank of mike rossi? And why would we advertise there, the root of this conversation is hunters don't use it, should I advertise to the antis? Finally, we are working on petition software that we can use on our own website, until then our only option is a third party petition host site. Among those sites, the user demography is similar, the one we chose, is most user friendly, however. I think its time the old guard stops undermining our efforts. Heed what we tell the politicians, NYDH will be around a lot longer than they will.

You know this, but for others, populations restored by trap and transfer follow the same trend... That is what the DEC and other agencies are referring to when they say the "turkey population probably has contracted."

Correct, but often non-hunting conservation organizations and their members do. There is other federal matching grant programs like the Pitman Robertson that these organizations leverage. As a matter of fact, many joint ventures or partnerships comprising of non hunting organizations help wildlife agencies leverage PR funds by putting up all or part of the matching dollar, plus volunteer services. I will just make something up for an example: Audubon, The Nature Conservancy, and the DEC form the Northeast Cougar Joint Venture...The partnership develops a recovery plan for the NY Striped Cougar. The Venture applies for a Pitman Robertson Grant in the amount of $400,000. To obtain this grant the partnership must put up 25% or $100,000... The Dec contributes $50,000 taken from the traditional account of the conservation fund. Audubon and NC each chip in $25,000. Additionally, by the time the project is complete, nine unpaid volunteers from Audubon and NC have logged in 4,500 hours...At a rate of $20 per hour, 4,500 hours is worth $90,000... Not sure if i applied the formula correctly or if my arithmetic is precise, but you get the idea....

I am not advocating for or against this, or even know how true it is, because I read it on a forum, but supposedly in New Jersey, the state wildlife agency makes recommendations about regulations to a politically appointed panel of farmers and hunters.

Fair enough Doc, but dont neglect that the professional social studies are conducted with established protocol. Also, all state agencies, not just the NY DEC collect public opinion to guide the social aspects of conservation. However, I do agree that when stakeholder opinion is allowed by politicians to over rule "best professional judgment" and/or research findings on biological aspects, it certainly is detrimental. Turning the topic back to social decisions, organizations often claim to represent the view point of the majority of sportsmen on social issues. Obviously that is not true, there are 750,000 licensed hunters in NY and the vast majority of them do not belong to organizations. of those that do belong, few participate. Of those who do participate, many go with the flow out of mere loyalty. Some say this is a broken system, Without random surveys how are the so-called "unorganized sportsmen" reached? Tier 3 of the problem, even when those unaffiliated hunters are surveyed, do they get their information and form their opinions based on what the organizations and/or magazines put out, anyway, even though they are not members?

I dont see it that way. I raised that article, asking why was it cool for the archers, but no longer cool anymore. The pro Sunday has been quiet actually. You are going to love this, the arguments used BY NJ HUNTERS opposing Sunday gun hunting are actually the same arguments used by the HSUS when they fought dove hunting in Michigan. No kidding...

No , as a matter of fact I suggested that duck season be closed during what Jersey calls "Buck Week" to use those additional days. It turns out, they like me, hunt waterfowl during periods when other waterfowlers take a break and chase deer. Just to be clear, as we figured out, that would not even add days, so its academic at this point. The firearm deer hunters are not opposed to this. It is mainly the archers. There is some confusion among the waterfowlers as well, but keep in mind NJ only has about 10,000 waterfowl hunters, and half or more want sunday hunting. The only opposition by firearm deer hunters is some are concerned about over harvest, Again, this should not enter because not only is harvest approached separably by biologists, but mainly because NJ's deer strategy is to further reduce the herd, with or without Sunday hunting and with or without hunter approval - its going to happen...