mike rossi

I get your point. Its not concentrating hunters and not very additive to the number of persons who would be out hunting anyway. But why cant this be carried out more quietly? Do you have to call it squirrel slam and crow down? Did you see the posters for the crow down, poor judgment and complete lack of regard for how others might (and did) perceive. Clean it up a little and stop denying the impacts of lead ammo... That wont get the antis off your back but it will go along way...

In post 23, Belo asks a good question. The pro-hunting legislation which successfully passes has the support of the DEC and broad-based public support, not just the support of the hunting community. Most of the regulations Belo listed function in reducing the deer herd. Although anti-hunters are not on board with lethal population control; the DEC, the conservation community and the hunting community were all together, so they passed. However, not all pro-hunting measures have the support of the conservation community and/or the DEC. These proposals are less likely to pass. Also, the DEC and the conservation community are not likely to weigh in on most social issues. Those proposals may become hunter against anti hunter or hunter against hunter. The weight of the anti-hunting community acting ALONE in NY was just seen when they overrode the hunting, the conservation, and the science communities and stopped the DEC's mute swan plan in its tracks AND with lightning speed passed legislation which ensured the DEC would do it their way. How this happened is harder to understand then Belo's examples, but it probably had to do with conservation organizations getting flack from their own members and lack of engagement by the hunting community, leaving the DEC to fend for itself. Hunters shouldn't expect the DEC to drive social issues; the reality is the DEC actually needs the hunting and the conservation communities to help them compel the legislature to pass sound legislation regarding biological issues. Another problem with the idea that biologists should defend hunting is the fact that people employed in the wildlife field, that includes DEC biologists, are increasingly people who do not have any first-hand experience with hunting or hunters. Not being hunters they may or may not be effective. Hunters might consider creating spoke person training like the NY Farm Bureau does. However, for that to work everyone must start to agree what a science-based decision is. Science - based decisions do not always please hunters. In order to build a stronger partnership with the conservation community the hunting community must begin to walk their talk about allowing science guiding policy, rather than pick and chose which science they like and dislike...

And that wont work with hunting...

Doc, HISTORICALLY Persuading people to accept contests or any form of hunting based on managing a nuisance or population ALWAYS fall backs on us. 1)The science is always debated. 2)The extent of the problem is always questioned. 3) Alternate non-lethal strategies are always proposed. (This angle has been the biggest promotion of non lethal control methods and the "demand" for it has accelerated development of non lethal strategies... Since these contests are visible and proven to be effective in the anti-hunting cause, numbers 1,2,3 are brought to public scrutiny. Then hunting becomes ONLY about population management. There are more arguments that there are alternatives to lethal management, (if the reason for hunting is population control, they surmise, then if alternatives exist, that hunting is unnecessary) the door continues to revolve and every other reason we hunt gets obscured. We are digging so many different holes for ourselves and there isn't an end to it in sight. Hunting contests don't feel right to you because they are very different than traditional hunting. We gauge hunting participation, but what we also need to figure out how to gauge is how hunting is evolving. If I had a good crow field, I would hunt it, not invite the public and charge entry fees for it. If its club property, then members can go out and hunt as they choose. If distributing hunting opportunity is an issue, then follow the controlled hunt regime of wildlife agencies as private duck clubs have done for decades, no need to make a contest out of it. A good crow field and you need a contest to get kids out there, no, sorry then those kids don't have it in them... Not too many years ago most hunters would think the same way, were have we gone and how the heck did we get here? And how do we get back?

Off course I want those details, why wouldn't I? Send them along, PM or otherwise.

As I said almost a year ago today; that next February and March the clubs from Greene NY and Holley NY with their respective "crow down" and "squirrel slam" will again bring attention to the media. These annual events enable the antis to organize better and engage more people each year. These contests have also helped the antis win new friends, increase their donations and build the size of their memberships. Several politicians such as Tony Avella grandstand on this every year as well, as a matter of fact he sponsored a bill to ban hunting contests for the very same people who protest the Greene and Holley events. Ironically, organizers of these events have boasted that the negative attention has increased contest entrees. That boast is very narrow-minded and demonstrates lack of situational awareness and common sense. The antis have raised a number of issues with these contests. The most compelling argument they have is the introduction of lead into the food chain if large numbers of carcasses are dumped and/or game is not retrieved or lost. Since that is 100% accurate and lead in the food chain is indeed an impact, the clubs should concede to the use of non toxic ammo. Any individual, club, or organization who argues against this is further damaging the image of hunting and credibility of hunters. There are a number of additional measures these clubs can and should take to make these events more palatable to the public majority. By now, they should also expect protests and be prepared to address them appropriately. If they do not have such a plan in place they are not being mindful of the rest of the sporting community.

casual and inexperienced hunter.

HOUNDS: Rockwood and Miller did in fact sign, and I believe Rockwood answered a question about it on the trapper's forum and thereby compelled more people to sign on. We do not have them or any trappers on our email list however. We had to post on the site and field questions, as with any forum, some of the questions were only to stir things up rather than being serious inquiries. Multiply that times 100 and that's what we did on the forum end alone. its way too much and plus most people we are reaching will not pay attention unless it is someone they know or at least know online - again we cant do it by ourselves. Please let me know if you will let me add you to our email list or ask those guys if they will do it. CURM: As far as a divide among "environmental groups" that is interesting. The DEC never did public educational outreach. Just like among the hunting community we have differing levels of interest and awareness, so does the conservation community. Some individuals or even chapters have disagreed with their organizations pro-dec stance on this issue. It goes with the territory, some people concerned about conservation are anti-hunters, anti lethal control of anything. Some organizations did indeed back off or at least limit their involvement because a significant percentage of their membership constituency "was not ready". Off course, many of them will never be ready... In General: Another thing that comes to mind: If anyone plans to contact the governor, they need to do it NOW. Remember, Cuomo has had absolutely NOTHING to do with this legislation and the purpose of contacting him is to make a request, so do not be rude or sarcastic. Sportsmen have a habit of asking rhetorical questions when they try to persuade, and this is being sarcastic. The Syracuse article contains a letter written that contains the following quote: "What would be next, the protection of Eurasian boar and snakehead fish to appease some other self-appointed species protective group?" Avoid asking sarcastic questions and also avoid this line of reasoning. The purpose of eradicating mute swans IS to protect other species. There is more than a single group opposing this and they have a right to under the philosophy of public trust doctrine and the North American Conservation Model. Plus, the legislature hands the parameters of the law down to the DEC and the legislature follows the public majority. We promulgated many different talking points which can be used to construct an email to the governor. I do not plan on going over this again, at this stage of the game, but its online, its on this site too. If you must make an analogy, be polite about it and choose something close to the governors home, and he sees all the time; like European starlings, Norway rats, Pigeons (rock doves), house or English sparrows. Another good example is the wild turkey flock on Staten Island which hybridized with domestic turkeys making them unsuitable for relocation. But I wouldn't go into swine or snakeheads, this is just more bravado and Cuomo isn't stupid, he graduated from a high ranked law school and served as the NY Attorney General for years. That would be the boss of all the state attorneys in NY. He will see right through "bravado". Residing and working in NYC he is familiar with the species, all non native except the turkeys, remind him of that.... This would be more tangible to him.

Thanks for signing and posting this. We are aware many of the trappers signed on, including the NY TA president and the NYTA Lobbyist, This petition is a gauge of our reach, and its not big enough. I would like to get your regular email address so that I can add you to our list so that you could forward and/or post our material on trapping / hound forums. If we can delegate more people in charge of contacting specific groups than we could all do more, plus people are more engaged if different people are contacting them instead of the same few. You and anyone else who can do this are asked to send me a PM or face book message. We just do not have enough people working with us and unfortunately we must use paid advertising at some point, and that will require that we solicit donations. We want to grow our reach as large as possible without paid advertising first. Let me know. By the way, the assembly sponsor of this bill, Cyronwitz, is telling supporters of the bill to contact the governor and ask him to sign it. The comments below the article you posted include one that they launched a petition yesterday morning and by 8 hours later got 1,000 signatures. All I can say is we informed on this issue for a solid 5 months and our petition is on the governor's desk right next to the bill(s)...

This is a good way to prevent hunters from SELECTING for bucks, which does little to control population, and actually causes a temporary increase in deer numbers. Temporary meaning several years... Maybe semi-permanent is a better word. Earn-A-Buck is in NY's future... But, what do I know, right?

I delivered NYDH's petition to the governor. Thanks to all that signed it. ELMO, you signed it twice, nice try, but when you sign it without your name displayed it doesn't show to the public, but it does show on the list... I should show you the email I got about this from the author of this article, Dave Figeroa. He is on our contact list and we have mailed him and others for 5 months about this. He finally asked what I was talking about. He never signed it nor promoted it, but he had enough time to write an article to promote one of his friends, I assume. Are these outdoor writers all alike? I don't remember it that way in the 70s and 80s... Anyway, enough criticism. Sorry Davey... You are a great outdoor writer. I do encourage anyone who has not yet signed a petition or wrote to the governor to do so right away. This last flurry of protest along with the DEC's insistence might very well persuade the governor in the right direction. If you want "talking points" to construct your letter, I already posted many, here, on face book, and on the NYDH website.

Is the speed limit the limit or the speed minimum?

All businesses are regulated, especially those that may impact public property - in this case wildlife. And state wildlife agencies have regulatory jurisdiction over most wildlife (under what the legislature hands them), not state agricultural agencies. Migratory wildlife and rare wildlife are managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, but they unfortunately, answer to federal lawmakers, as the state wildlife agencies (the DEC) answer to state lawmakers... You also need to acquaint yourself with the North American Conservation Model, if you cant or wont connect the dots in the model, and figure out why this is relevant, I cant help you. You are again (in another post as well) are trying to cast similarities between upland bird preserves and high fence ungulate operations. Next , someone else , perhaps anti hunters, will encourage this to transpire over to state bird stocking programs then to use of released birds for training hunting dogs. There are no similarities. And FYI: NY state banned possession, breeding, raising, and release for hunting of mallard ducks three or four years ago. The reason for this is that an ecological link was identified that deemed this practice unwise. It was banned and without a major backlash by the hunters and preserve operators and without most of them second guessing the DEC and other wildlife professionals. I am sure there was some opposition, including by people other than hunters and preserve operators; but nothing like the war waged by the cervid industry, but you are probably proud of that war. Although some people have tried to write pseudo science and link the release of upland game birds to ecological issues, the consensus among the wildlife science community is that it is not an issue, but rather something that on a social level promotes hunting, conservation, and generates revenue and public support for conservation, rather than consumes conservation revenue as often charged. Mallard ducks are NOT upland birds. You cant even compare a waterfowl species with an upland species and YOU want to compare cervids to upland birds... If you want to establish similarities, here is one: the release or even captive breeding of mallard ducks and whitetail deer both impact wild free-ranging populations.....

What exactly is the sore spot with your quote, number 5? All that is saying is that state wildlife agencies should regulate captive game, not state agriculture agencies. That makes perfect sense, even more sense because the captive game is raised for hunting purposes. Should zoos or individuals own lions and tigers with no regulation as well? The author of the article you posted, and you, by posting it, are trying to conflate upland bird shooting preserves with high fence ungulate hunting and breeding. That is faulty logic on more levels than I care to delve.

Here are the relevant Parts: The policy of The Wildlife Society regarding shooting preserves is to: 1. Recognize the value of high quality shooting preserves, especially the part they play in the recruitment and retention of hunters. 2. Recognize that shooting preserves are not a substitute for healthy, native, game bird populations or a surrogate for natural habitats. 3. Recommend that state and provincial wildlife agencies develop science-based policies for management of shooting preserves. Personnel in these agencies should have knowledge of game species within their jurisdictions, including sufficient data on native and nonnative populations of species potentially impacted by escaped animals. 4. Recommend that shooting preserves use native or naturalized game species. 5. Support state and provincial wildlife agencies as the primary regulatory authority over shooting preserves, whether they involve stocking of native or non-native game birds. State and provincial wildlife agencies should work cooperatively with other state, provincial, and federal agriculture and health agencies, hunting groups, conservation organizations, and private landowners to reduce the potential for problems, such as disease transmission and genetic exchange among and between released non-native game birds and native wildlife. 6. Encourage states to require all birds for release to be certified per the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP). 7. Recommend that the physical operation of shooting preserves remains in the realm of private enterprise, and discourage their establishment by public agencies on public land or the leasing of public land for such purposes. Recognize that stocking of game birds by public agencies on public lands open to hunting is a legitimate wildlife management practice that provides a quality recreational opportunity when managed correctly. 8. Encourage state and provincial wildlife agencies to license shooting preserves, to establish and enforce high standards of operations to ensure a quality hunting experience, to require shooting preserves to develop management plans that specifically address habitat quality, fair chase, disease prevention, and the management of escaped animals to minimize risks to off-site wildlife and wildlife habitats and to provide education that links hunting to the Public Trust Doctrine. AND: The policy of The Wildlife Society with respect to ungulate confinement is to: 1. Recognize the serious biological (diseases, genetic effects, etc.) and social (public versus private ownership of wildlife, ethics) issues associated with confinement of wild ungulates. 2. Oppose any additional conversion of the public's native wildlife to private ownership via high-fenced enclosures. 3. Oppose high-fenced enclosures, regardless of size, if they exclude free-ranging native wildlife from critical seasonal habitats or migration routes, or jeopardize the sustainability of free-ranging native wildlife. 4. Support regulations and enforcement to prevent escapes of confined animals and facilitate recovery in the event of an escape. 5. Support state and provincial wildlife agencies as the primary regulatory authority over native North American ungulates, including those confined by high fences. State and provincial wildlife agencies should work cooperatively with other state, provincial, and federal agricultural, wildlife, and health agencies as well as hunting groups, conservation organizations, private landowners, and managers to reduce the potential for problems such as disease transmission and genetic exchange among native wildlife and exotic species.

The answer: http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/Shooting_Preserves.pdf http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/33-Ungulate%20Confinement.pdf

This will make the stamp using your artwork standout for a long time, probably will be referenced many times in the future, that is if the bills are signed and enacted into law before June or whenever the stamps go to print before June. But as far as the reasoning behind the segregation of funds, I believe the original two bills still have a stipulation that explains it, at least to the extent legislative bills explain anything. There were a couple of colloquys among the federal lawmakers about it, including a motion to amend the bill to leave that clause out. A number of conservationists and conservation organizations spoke out here and there. But I don't have all that saved, I would have to look it up. For whatever its worth, I can give you my understanding and opinion: The vast majority of waterfowl and waterfowl habitat exists in private ownership. Therefore, landowner cooperation is essential to conservation. Additionally many agriculture practices can be tweaked to create favorable conditions for waterfowl. I don't want to write a book or go into this thoroughly, but a few examples are timing of planting and harvest - particularly for pintails which are declining continentally , although the Sacramento NWR currently counted 550,000 of them on that complex alone this week... Irrigation regimes. water management in rice fields. participation in CRP, WRP. CREP, and all the Farm Bill programs. For a laundry list of reasons, farmers, ranchers, and other landowners are needed, however financial incentives are necessary to get them to use eco-friendly practices. There already does exist funding programs for these incentives. I believe. but am not positive; that the duck stamp fund is already one of them. All that bodes for use of the federal migratory bird conservation fund / duck stamp fund in acquiring leases from private lands. I have no qualms with that. However, there may be a reason why federal lawmakers stipulate a portion of the funds can ONLY be used for that, but I don't know what the reason is or if the reason is legitimate. Anything that might benefit wealthy landowners (although poor landowners will benefit as well) and is endorsed by the republicans waves a red flag. All may be sound, and legitimate, but never the less, I would trust the FWS to administer the funds in the most optimal way, without mandates from Congress which set the parameters. And I would prefer this judgment was left to the FWS. not lawmakers. Maybe I am wrong about the duck stamp already funding easements. If this legislation authorizes it for the first time, that is a great thing. but even so, it still should let the FWS make the decisions. Habitat acquisition (therefore spending on it) must be done by prioritizing according to habitat value and/or preserving the most imperiled habitat types, and/or habitats which support imperiled species, not by some arbitrary percentage of spending handed down by lawmakers... If you decide to research your own question, post what you find, I would like to know as well. But I am not delving into this one.

Federal Lawmakers in both houses just passed legislation that will increase the price of the federal duck stamp $10. This is the first time the stamp has went up in price in 23 or 24 years. The legislation awaits Obama's signature into law. Although I agree the price increase is long overdue, there was a disagreement among federal lawmakers about a stipulation that the additional revenue generated from the extra ten dollars would be dedicated to conservation easements on private lands. I agree with the lawmakers who think that this lack of flexibility is unmerited. The FWS should not be prevented from using any portion of the federal migratory bird conservation fund or duck stamp fund for BUYING land. The fact that they are "separating" any portion of any sort of conservation fund is always concerning to begin with. Do not get me wrong, private land is indeed extremely important to migratory bird conservation. I just don't see the need for this restriction to be put on the FWS. Hopefully this was reconciled in the final legislation and if it was not Obama will amend it.

Federal Lawmakers in both houses just passed legislation that will increase the price of the federal duck stamp $10. This is the first time the stamp has went up in price in 23 or 24 years. If Obama signs the legislation and it gets enacted into law soon enough, this stamp will be the first stamp to reflect the price increase. Thought all would be interested in that... Not to change the subject; although I agree the price increase is long overdue, there was a disagreement among federal lawmakers about a stipulation that the additional revenue generated from the extra ten dollars would be dedicated to conservation easements on private lands. I agree with the lawmakers who think that this lack of flexibility is unmerited. The FWS should not be prevented from using any portion of the federal migratory bird conservation fund or duck stamp fund for BUYING land. The fact that they are "separating" any portion of any sort of conservation fund is always concerning to begin with. Do not get me wrong, private land is indeed extremely important to migratory bird conservation. I just don't see the need for this restriction to be put on the FWS. Hopefully this was reconciled in the final legislation and if it was not Obama will amend it.

We have promulgated information on how absurd this controversy is on a variety of levels, including how it will impact policy decisions in the future. One of the articles I posted apparently is being dissed, I don't quite understand it, but one post gets quadruple the traction as the other, with the only difference is a comment and several "likes" from the peanut gallery which seem to signal don't waste your time opening the link. Well, I am saying the opposite - open the below link and read and share this article: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/new-insights-into-the-mute-swan-issue.html

And, in doing so they are also directing the DEC to spend the money of hunters less efficiently. Yes, the money of hunters. I will give you ONE example; and I want to stress that this is ONE example of many ways the state conservation fund and federal funds derived from hunters will be impacted.... Part of the demands of the antis and lawmakers is for the DEC to set up a mute swan adoption program. The federal government through the BLM already has a captive herd of over 50,000 wild burros and horses. The captive herd has been growing because the adoption rate is very low. Meanwhile the free ranging herd continues to grow on BLM lands and increasingly impact native wildlife. The cost of maintaining this program is tens of millions annually and this has been going on for many years. Does the state of NY really need the expense of a captive flock of mute swans?

Some DEC coop lands, which are private land leased by the DEC can restrict sunday hunting or thanksgiving or something, it is up to the landowner. Coop lands almost always are very specific about where you can park. Some other DEC owned lands have designated parking and others do not. You can never drive off road onto fields etc... You wouldn't want to block any road, trail, or farm approach either. As far as the house, obviously you do not want to shoot towards it. Waterfowl hunting setbacks when hunting over permanent water and not shooting in the direction of buildings do not require you to be 500 feet from a building. off course, that doesn't mean you wont piss people off if you do. If its coop land I would ask the landowner if he minds or check your permit stipulations. Bad behavior causes the DEC to lose these contracts and everyone loses access. Your question also asks how to hunt ducks. Another post of yours under small game is also very broad. You should narrow it down and give more info, for example what type of small game have you been pursuing and how were you going about it... The way you have been framing your questions they cant be readily answered.

I am not positive, but I believe the DEC is required by law to open up a public review period for almost all regulation changes and conservation plans. What they could have done, was launch their educational outreach before revealing the plan. What they did do instead was make the outreach one of the strategies included in the plan. Speaking of outreach, that is interesting. Is the lawmakers and the antis going to CENSORE the outreach or tell the DEC what they can say to the public about mute swan ecology? This is really ridiculous. Nothing in the outreach is going to be palatable to them. Will they say, no DEC you cant say that, you have to tell them that mute swans are no harm to the ecosystem and are peaceful creatures etc... They already essentially said the DEC doesn't know what they are talking about and/or needs additional research on top of the existing volumes... We tried to point this out and it hasn't hit home yet...

Neither did anyone else say there was any hunting season for them in NY....

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=568324&mode=2