mike rossi

This post should be taken seriously. I am not going to rant and rave like the old crazy eddie commercials - take my word it that it is worth the time.

December 2014 features an excellent article by Curmudgeon on golden eagles. There is also a blurb about Jennifer this issue. Check it out.

We need to model a proposal for NY after how Mass does it: https://www.facebook.com/241845196003193/photos/a.242040862650293.1073741828.241845196003193/332344960286549/?type=1&theater

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.208/abstract http://www.humansandnature.org/hunting---jed-meunier-response-121.php

Notice the Maine's trappers association is working WITH this, not against it. Good for them! Hopefully the USSA and/or NRA doesnt come in and instigate (on the behalf of sportsmen off course).... http://www.pressherald.com/2014/12/09/state-shuts-down-most-trapping-in-northern-maine/

http://wildlife.org/feral-cats-likely-driving-disease-among-deer-study-finds/

The information taught in this free course will be very valuable in understanding the complex layers of science, politics, and controversies inherent to setting hunting policy. NY Dove Hunting recommends and hopes our members take advantage of this free course. Remember this is a free course without a grade, so like anything else, the more you put into it, the more you will get out of it. https://www.coursera.org/course/perceptivehunting

Some more to drive the point home... http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/using-hindsight-and-foresight.html

I hope that this has been a learning experience for the sporting community. We might do a "lessons learned' type of article about it in the near future, but that might be perceived as a lecture and therefore be off putting. Never the less the DEC will again open a revised mute swan strategy for public review over a 45 day period. The antis will again flood them with mostly the same tired arguments. They have began to introduce a new claim, incorrectly asserting, that mute swan populations are "stable" "especially around NYC". Not true , mute swan populations are growing in both size (13% annually) and distribution. By distribution, it means they are spreading across the state and outside of the state... Interestingly, they seem to have modeled that misconception over premises we made that distinguished the ring necked pheasant from an "invasive species". We clarified what qualifies as an invasive species and why, and indicated that , among other reasons, the pheasant is not increasing in population size and distribution, but rather decreasing in both. These type of logic flawed arguments by anti hunters have been used for decades to conflate and confuse. They seem to either be inept at fact interpretation and/or do this intentionally, as sort of a ploy that they think they can make facts backfire or make us inhibited about using certain ones. Wildlife agencies all over the USA spend millions of dollars each year clarifying facts, those dollars your license fees and PR funds displaced from better uses. As far as the revised plan, although we want the sporting community to participate, as this is part of the "lessons learned, however we caution everyone to be relevant. The DEC may restrict comments to certain aspects of the plan that have been revised or have not been in the original draft. The review might call for some opinions on largely technical things, rather than social desires or philosophical ideology. Irrelevant rants from either side are likely to be disregarded, especially at this stage in the game. Even though a recapitulation of lessons learned might be useful; we did indeed succeed in this campaign. The mission statement of NY Dove Hunting is to inform policy makers and stakeholders (hunters, officers of hunting organizations,members of various advisory boards). We did that. Hopefully, moving forward, we have earned their trust and we will not have to work nearly as hard to get them to pay attention to what we are saying. The media is not yet facilitating that. A quick google search will dredge up over 50 recent articles by "outdoor writers" and general news people. We are pleased some of them have resonated with much we have said, and are actually pleased that they are giving kudos to various members of the sporting community for their effort. However, although we dont want "credit" for this, (the LAST thing we want is to further the idea that others and/or organizations can do it alone) it would be helpful to funnel stakeholders to NYDH for information. The existing modus operanti of writers is to center the topic around certain people. This is good because it rewards and encourages participation. But it isnt conducive to helping others to understand the issue and engage themselves. To not mention NYDH is hard to reconcile but we are open to explanations... It is up to you guys to post NYDH's articles and/or extract certain sound bites from our website to increase our reach. Context is important, and we try to construct how things are written so that the context cannot be misapplied, however, since that isnt 100% foolproof, some care must be taken. We did publish an article about this around the time the Governor vetoed the law. I also posted a link to it on this forum. It seems that many on here have missed it. perhaps because mobile devices will not load our page? If so, let us know. I am going to paste the entire article below: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/governor-cuomo-vetoes-anti-dec-mute-swan-proposal.html The governor did indeed veto the mute swan proposal. On December 17, 2014; senate bill 06589 and assembly bill 08790a were VETOED and “tabled”. About the same time this legislation was introduced, the DEC had already agreed to compromise with anti-hunters, however. This does not mean that the DEC will necessarily revoke the voluntary compromise; however, at least it does not bind them by law. It is not uncommon for wildlife agencies to modify conservation plans to be consistent with the input during the public review phase. It is not common, however, for an agency to afford protection to an invasive species. Someone, on either side of the issue, or within the DEC might reconcile this with an analogy which compares stocking brown trout and ring necked pheasant to satisfy the sportsmen. That wouldn't really be equitable comparisons and is not really accurate, but that is beyond the scope of this topic and we are not going to expand on that right now. We suggest, however, that sportsmen make a mental reservation about this, because it is likely to come up in the future. Also very similar, but off topic, is other legislation currently pending in NY at the time of this writing, which will protect another invasive bird, the monk parakeet which is also known as the Quaker parrot. The monk parakeet is currently unprotected and can be taken year round. This legislation would reclassify the monk parakeet as a fully protected bird and as such the DEC would not even be able to set a hunting season for it. This is the direct opposite of the efforts of sportsmen who have been trying to reclassify the mourning dove to a game bird. As in the case of mute swans; the Quaker parrot issue is important on its own merit; however it also has far – reaching effects on precedent and particularly the movement to establish a mourning dove hunting season in the last eight lower states which still do not allow hunting. It doesn't end there and that is not all! To sum it up; if mourning doves are not classified as game it can be an obstacle to managing non-native doves. The vice versa is also true, if non-native doves are not classified as either game or unprotected wildlife, that may be an obstacle to establishing a mourning dove hunting season. The expanded explanation of why is as follows: Two species of non-native doves are spreading across the USA. Although the impact on native wildlife is unclear, since they are not classified as neither game, nor unprotected wildlife, they are by default “protected birds”. As such, the DEC would require legislative approval to allow hunting of them. Even if the legislature agreed to control non-native doves, since they are larger, but similar in appearance and behavior to mourning doves, an argument by the antis can be made that hunters will misidentify their targets and harvest mourning doves. If these negative hypothetical scenarios do play out, the antis would hedge their bet that the resolve of the sporting community is insufficient in matters pertaining to small game. Success in influencing ANY DEC policy, however, leverages their total influence on ALL conservation policies, including whitetail deer. Such influence may manifest in non-lethal population control methods and a variety of other non-traditional policies. For further reading see: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/the-common-denominator.html http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/non-native-doves-reported-in-new-york.html http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/eurasian-collared-dove-hunting-ndash-endless-opportunity.html

Those will work, I am including all my tags, out of state licenses, etc... The idea is to show what one hunter spends on licensing over a career of hunting... That in turn, demonstrates why each recruited hunter that hopefully becomes a life long hunter, is an asset to conservation...

http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/governor-cuomo-vetoes-anti-dec-mute-swan-proposal.html Read story here: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/governor-cuomo-vetoes-anti-dec-mute-swan-proposal.html

The governor did indeed VETO this on December 17. He did not just let it expire, he flat out rejected it. Thanks to all that helped! We are working on an article about this.

I have most of mine. As a matter of fact, we are adding a page to our website which we contain photos of life long purchases of hunting licenses, stamps, and permits. The page is to show in a tangible way, how much hunters contribute to conservation over their hunting career in just purchasing license , permits and stamps. Actually if you have fishing licenses and stamps include them as well. Anyone who can contribute a photo, please do so. You can contact our web person on face book or just PM me on here. The website I am talking about for those who don't know is NY Dove Hunting.

Well, they are still hiring, go for it. There is a huge CE Office minutes from Binghamton in the middle of a corn field... A mile up the road there is a NG fuel station with two pumps for everyone who drives NG powered vehicles... http://www.chk.com/careers

So the graph is for everyone, starting at one million "thousand" dollars, lol... . My graph makes more sense: Average income $48,000 and about a 13% poverty level. Statistics can be use to mislead and this is what the propaganda you posted is designed to do... By the way, how do you write out numerically "one million thousand"? Give us all a break...

I just extracted this info from the US Census Bureau. This clearly shows the data on the graphs by pro-fracking entities posted by Hunterman 7956 are complete lies.( As I already indicated just from knowing the area and applying common sense). The link to the complete document so you can read it all and/or verify authenticity, is below the table. I think I have had about enough of this forum. Either the person who posted that garbage cannot distinguish between propaganda and facts or he is intentionally being misleading. It seems people are working together on here as well or have multiple screen names. I made three posts this morning, asking three people to support their claims . All of a sudden, they decided not to answer, and then this propaganda report is posted. As if to distract the pointed questions and change the subject to a bunch of made up data....

Hunterman 7956: I appreciate that post. However; am I reading the graph correctly, does it indicate that people or businesses which previously have earned around One MILLION dollars have earned more? No kidding, what a surprise... Again, have you ever driven through much of Susquenna County? It looks like a war zone. It is a dump. The roads are terrible and many houses are in serious disrepair, the people obviously are not well off financially or even able to afford basic maintnenance of their homes. The traffic is heavy, not only from heavy trucks used by the industry, but also the many personal vehicles driven by out of state workers living out of motels who work for the industry. If someone is attuned enough, they can determine that from google maps, but driving around is better. I know the area, I hunt in the area. I have been there many times, including recently. ,

However, the Adirondacks were set aside as old growth habitat and it would require an amendment to the state constitution to change that. These discourses about logging the Adirondacks are ironic. One minute sportsmen claim that land acquisition should focus on tracts closer to the population centers. The next instant they want the ADKs logged. Although there is much state land outside of the Adirondacks, closer to the population centers, which is designated for habitat manipulation, there is no political support do it. The irony is that there is political support to manage habitat on land in remote locations which habitat manipulation is not a designated land use... I am beating around the bush by calling this irony. It is more like: agenda, ideology, and even spite and hatred...

What town is the lease located in?

What roads from Newark to Buff? Sounds like I- 80 through PA versus I-90 through NY. I-80 and I-90 are comparable. Both are typical interstates. Likewise the back roads of PA's northern tier and NY'S southern tier are comparable. Both are horrible. However, the reason for the horrible condition differs: the southern tier of NY is over populated, whoever designed the infrastructure is an idiot and the state and municipalities just don't maintain the roads, despite all the tax they collect. PA's northern tier back roads are torn up by the heavy trucks used by the fracking industry. Away from frack pads you don't see the road destruction, unfortunately those areas are rare because they frack every inch they can.

The contrast between NY and Pa could be summed up as PA government and residents bought the line of bull that they all would be hitting the jackpot. Nobody hit the jackpot and much of the county side and drinking water supply is impacted. When the excess production continues to drive down the price of NG, PA will face the problem of closing down abandoned frack sites long after the industry has packed its bags. NY, on the other hand, with the benefit of hindsight from the experiences of other states, actually made a better decision. By the way, I believe you live on Long Island? Did you ever live in a house supplied with well water or spring water? Are you even aware that millions of people get water out of their tap from wells or springs?

Heck of a year to win the duck stamp contest. If it takes effect in June 2015, I guess you hit the charts, so to speak. People will probably speculate and be more likely to buy more than one. Better get out and buy up this years stamp as well, because it to will mark the end of an era. (The fifteen dollar era). Your stamp begins the $25 era...

Oh, come off it already... The only awareness that you have that this will be ammo against hunters is probably right here. The mad dog wasn't reacting to abuse, he is just a moron... And that wouldn't be an excuse anyway... No need to help the manipulation of perception with your own behavior... Your a funny guy...

Good - science and common sense prevailed... And the comments on Cuomo's face book page to a fracking post about this by hunters is concerning. Calling people liberals and saying to them them they "probably don't own enough land to piss on" is real conducive to support for hunting and a good public image of hunters... Then claim to be "conservationists" and "sportsmen". These people were engaged, numerous, organized, and dedicated. Getting them against you when a hunting issue comes to the table is real smart... Don't give me this crap they all are already against hunting either. After some of the comments and exchanges about this on face book, I am sure hunters lost credibility among people who never were previously biased against hunting and/or hunters....

Without the NRA, which has been around a long time, (100 years?) gun ownership in the USA would likely have been already outlawed. Most definitely it would be more restrictive than it already is. However, their expertise is second amendment law / constitutional law. They should stick to that and stop talking about conservation because not only do they know nothing about conservation, they do not care about conservation, and very often advocate for UNWISE practices. They urge or suggest their members support their conservation perspective. Part of this is just the donation game. Create an enemy and the donations roll in. Anti hunting organizations do this as well. So do other pro hunting and pro gun organizations. For all they do to preserve gun ownership, the NRA works against conservation and good public relations. And they are not always sensitive to other cultures. They stick their chin out and go out of their way not to be politically correct. There is a difference between standing with your viewpoint when it is not politically correct and going way out of your way to "pick fights". Picking fights dumbs down their supporters and generates donations. With their attitude toward conservation AND habit of picking fights, they hurt the image of gun owners, hunters, and hunting. Gun ownership is protected by the constitution. However there are few such protections for hunting. And hunter numbers will continue to drop if we have a bad image. The bigger the drop, the more aggressively and creatively will states and the FWS will look toward non hunters to fund their agencies. More emphasis will be put on developing, improving, and USING non lethal wildlife population control methods. The bad image will hinder the broad - based public support that is necessary to pass pro hunting legislation and defeat anti hunting legislation. Confusing hunters about conservation makes them support what they should not, oppose what they should support, or ignore what they should pay attention to. If all this corresponds to less hunting opportunity due to both greater restrictions and less places to hunt, and smaller game populations, then what? Even if hunting was afforded to be a legal right and therefore untouchable, how will conservation be funded if the number of us gets precipitously low? Would such a legal right prevent banning any thing, I don't think so. Where is the public support to block anti hunting proposals if we have a bad image? Likewise does a right to hunt guarantee that new pro hunting proposals will be put into law? No it does not. Where is the public support needed to enact pro hunting proposals if we have a bad image?