mike rossi

Can you please be clear? Are you referring to the subsection of the article sub-titled that and asking me what I think is wrong with that? If that's your implication, here is my two - part answer: 1) The premise that dove hunting will only benefit a small number of people has been raised. This topic addresses that argument. Additionally, we debunked that premise in other reports: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/dove-hunter-numbers-of-the-emu-vs-total-number-of-falconers--trappers-in-the-usa.html http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/national-dove-hunting-survey-2013.html http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/is-lack-of-interest-credible.html 2) The topic also confronts another premise that lawmakers have bigger priorities and cant get around to looking at a dove bill. If you, as an archer who was opposed to the crossbow legalization; are interpreting this as taking sides or bolstering one of the crossbow premises, you are mistaken. Although I can understand how that can be mistaken, reading something with due diligence is important before you draw conclusions. Both the NY Bow Hunters and the Crossbow coalition have supported our dove initiative and also our mute swan campaign. That may not what people on here and/or the NYON reports and/or a particular retired DEC commissioner will lead you to believe; but we have over 45 letters from individual organizations, many petition signatures, and well over 1,000 subscribers. Our efforts are also supported by major conservation organizations such as Audubon and by wildlife biologists professional organizations such as The Wildlife Society and the Union of Ornithologists. What the sporting community fails to recognize is how large and powerful the anti-hunting force is in NY and how many lawmakers they have in their pocket. So large, they not only overrule the hunting community; but also the DEC , other wildlife biologists, and major conservation groups such as Audubon.

http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/new-insights-into-the-mute-swan-issue.html

Get there well before shooting time in the morning. If that turns out to be a nocturnal area, which birds leave at shooting time rather than an area they fly to, instead of pass shooting at birds lifting off at day break, let them go and you (might) decoy singles, pairs, and small groups that return at random times throughout the day. This would allow you to experience decoying, get cleaner shots, and manage the hunting pressure so the birds do not avoid the area and/or get a fast-track education about hunters...

More, postscript: Invasive species indirectly impact EVERY species and every habitat because limited conservation funds become diverted away from native species to abate problems caused by alien species. This is magnified when animal rights organizations drive politics which FORCE wildlife agencies to abandon the most effective and least expensive methods in favor of non-lethal methods. Non-residents of NY Please speak up! Since every state splits Pitman Robertson funding with all the other states per a formula, when my state does not spend wisely and operate efficiently, it affects you... Furthermore impacts on wildlife which travel across state lines needs to be considered in the same light. That isn't all, when one state or locality protects a population of an invasive species, as this legislation directs NY to do, that state or locality becomes a "source habitat" from which the invasive spreads and is essentially a constant source to surrounding states. After you sign, where can YOU solicit signatures: Social media including groups and pages; Forums; hunting clubs and shooting ranges; state and national clubs; your email contacts who hunt; letters or emails to magazines – including the NY Outdoor News.

If you had a chance - To block a measure that would… Be harmful to native wildlife Be harmful to wetland habitats Be harmful to the conservation fund Blocks new hunting opportunity Allows Animal Rights Organizations to over-rule the DEC Emboldens animal rights organizations and sets new precedents on policy decisions Would you act on that chance? Here is your opportunity. Sign this petition and ask others to do the same! http://www.thepetitionsite.com/832/485/616/veto-s-065889-a-and-a-08790-a/

I cant find a better article right now, in the future I will, but this cue theory answers the question how could someone mistake a person for a deer or turkey, at close range no less. This is phycology or neurological stuff, pretty heady. Has to do with how people's brains work with their visual perception. Its mentioned a lot along with buck fever and tunnel vision, but this is different.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.rosen/cuetheory.htm

IDK Western... I would say the average person isn't put off by a hunter criticizing other hunters. Such a person, as you indicated, irritates other hunters... However, it is the slob hunter that turns off people to hunters/hunting. I don't know how wise it is to focus on what is perceived as elitism or an arrogant attitude every time ethics or behavior are questionable, that seems to be a trend as well, at least on here. I don't think the radio conversation was responsible because it was laden with profanity and was about a wounded animal. That sort of talk doesn't win friends with non-hunters.

Is the OP's question " would there be fewer anti-hunters if there were fewer slob hunters?". The answer is YES and there would also be less ammunition to fuel their agenda. Not only would there be a more favorable public perception and greater support of hunting by non hunters, but more people would also be interested in taking up hunting.

So what is worse, a more serious or dedicated hunter who is pretentious, even approaching arrogance, or a less dedicated hunter that sometimes might impact the image of hunting or hunters? Now that's your answer, how will a non hunter answer?

We all heard about Maine's "Question 1" which sought to ban the use of bait, hounds and foot snares to take bears... This was not the only hunting-related referendum that was up for grabs during the November 2014 general election across the US. A complete link to the story below. The most interesting and most significant IMO is Michigan Proposal 2: Proposal 2, Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum Michigan voters rejected two proposals on November 4 regarding hunting. Proposal 1 would .... Proposal 2 would have allowed the Natural Resources Commission to directly designate game species and determine hunting seasons, rather than game animals being designated through legislation. Remember: Michigan was the state that the HSUS ran TV ads to gather petition signatures which enabled them to allow Michigan to put the fate of dove hunting up for vote in 2006. The majority vote was to ban Michigan's newly created (two year old) dove season. What if whitetail deer hunting was put on a referendum, would the outcome differ? Read more here: http://wildlife.org/wildlife-management-issues-on-the-ballot-last-week/

The two hunters should call their assembly rep and state senate rep and fill out a form for a "legislative inquiry". Ask why the charges were not immediate, guns seized, and an arrest made. Don't complain to police supervisors - go to the legislature. I would also inquire as to why no charges for: Charge for giving False statements - this was not a livestock issue - assault charge (no brainer) - animal cruelty charge which is a felony The next thing the hunters should do is retain a civil attorney and file lawsuits against all responsible parties. Let the cops do or not do their jobs in criminal court and bring this to "peoples court" (civil matters) and take all of his money you can and ruin his credit. Perhaps the police are in line for getting sued as well... They may have to make dozens of calls before they get an attorney willing to take this case, but someone will indeed take it, perhaps with a small or even no retainer fee. I will tell you what, if legal fees are an issue, enough of the sporting community will come together for this with donations and the internet makes it easier than ever. If anyone knows how to reach these hunters, they should relay this. Or give me their names and location I will contact them....

Here are a couple quotes from this commentary that should especially be paid attention: Pacelle introduced this segment saying that laws in a civil society are not only designed to keep order but to reflect the values which are basic to society. The laws are not designed to change everybody; they are designed to deal with those who are increasingly viewed as (moral) outliers in society. The law addresses these outlier cases of people who are engaging in conduct that is no longer acceptable. The conduct may have been acceptable at one point, but it is no longer acceptable today. Pacelle reminded listeners that it is up to them to advance social progress for animals just like the other great causes of civil rights, anti-slavery, and women's rights. (I have seen this expanded to say that hunting and trapping no longer reflect the values of the majority in modern society) We may be used to the animal rights rhetoric and vegan agenda; however the really disturbing part of this new“structure” plan is the HSUS District Leader Program now in place. This program is designed to engage people in all 435 Congressional Districts and have those District Leaders lead political efforts to advance federal legislation by concentrating on influencing members of Congress.(HSUS claims they will end hunting by use of the ballot box. For example the recent bear referendum in Maine. That is ONE example of many, they do this all the time. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. The big national pro - hunting organizations typically only promulgate the referendums pertaining to big game) Pacelle explained to listeners that this new structure being developed for the District Leader program was very important. It is not just political. The Leaders will work with school districts to establish Meatless Mondays (Try meatless Fridays for the Catholic religion during Lent in public schools, that would be destroyed, though this might proposal might actually fly in some school districts). In addition to the District Leaders,HSUS plans to include within this framework County Leaders in all 3,100 counties across the U.S. Quoting Pacelle, “Our ambition is to have thousands and thousands of people involved. If we get this done, we’re going to be hell on wheels.”

SPECIAL REPORT - HSUS TAKING ACTION FOR ANIMALS 2014 November 10, 2014 at 10:56pm The HSUS annual conference Taking Action for Animals (TAFA) was held June 27-30, 2014 in Washington DC. HSUS describes the conference as one that promotes “mainstream solutions” and provides attendees education to become abetter advocate for animals. In other words, TAFA serves as a huge pep rally for animal rightists to connect, bolster their morale, and in the words of HSUS: “recharge their batteries.” In his conference speech Wayne Pacelle told the audience, “TAFA is an attempt to attract the elite in the animal protection movement to help train you and educate you so then you can fan out all over the country and spread these messages and heighten your own level of effectiveness as an advocate.” The various conference speakers included many of the old guard from the animal rights industry: Gene Bauer and Bruce Friedrich (Farm Sanctuary); Carole Baskin (Big Cat Rescue); Sara Amundson (Humane Society Legislative Fund); Keith Dane (HSUS Equine Protection); Jonathan Lovvorn (HSUS VP Animal Protection and Litigation); Nancy Perry (Sr. VP Government Relations, ASPCA). Nick Cooney and Nathan Runkle from Mercy for Animals (MFA) were also among the speakers. MFA is probably best known for their undercover videos of animal agriculture which Runkle calls the “lifeblood” of the organization. MFA considers itself part of a “social justice” movement where portraying production agriculture as harsh and cruel will move people toward a vegan diet. Although not her first appearance, a newer face at TAFA was Lisa Fletcher, host of “The Stream” on Al Jazeera America and wife of Wayne Pacelle, who describes herself as a friend to all animals and vegan food maniac. You may remember reading recently that Fletcher provided a platform for longtime radical activist Paul Shapiro, HSUS VP on Farm Animal Protection, on a segment of her show covering new USDA regulations. Other TAFA scheduled speakers included, State Rep.Eddie Lucio III (TX); Jill Kline (Education and Advocacy Manager, Wisconsin Humane Society); Christine Coughlin (Pres. Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection); and Nicole Paquette (VP, HSUS Wildlife Protection/former Texas State Director). TAFA also offered a series of workshops for the attendees. “Becoming a Political Animal” workshop was moderated by HSUS director and former member of Animal Liberation Front, John Goodwin. Presenters included former state senator Roy Afflerbach (PA); Matt Dominguez, HSUS Public Policy Manager Farm Animal Protection; and Wayne Pacelle. Workshop attendees were instructed on effective lobbying at all levels of government from city council to Congress. “Giving Farm Animals a Voice” workshop presenters included Erica Meier, Executive Director, Compassion Over Killing, and Kristie Middleton, Corporate Outreach Manager, HSUS Farm Animal Protection who shared strategies for effectively waging initiatives against farm animal cruelty. Kelly Peterson, HSUS Senior Vice President for State Affairs moderated a workshop with former and current legislators to teach activists what “humane legislators” need to hear in order to pass animal protection laws. The discussion panel included Delegate Eric Luedtke (MD); Representative Diana Urban (CT); and former Tennessee state Representative Eric Swafford, now HSUS Director for Rural Outreach and Development. We will cover this portion of the conference in more detail in a later article. THE HSUS PLAN AND PROGRAMS When Pacelle addressed the audience his speech centered on the four policy sections that HSUS uses to break down the animal protection movement. They are: Public Education and Awareness; Hands on Caring; Corporate Reform and Corporate Policy; and Public Policy and Enforcement. Pacelle noted it is now a universal value in our society to oppose cruelty to animals. With anti-cruelty statutes in every state carrying felony penalties it reinforces the fact that people who are cruel to animals are going to pay a price to society, either with incarceration or fines. Pacelle continued, “That is the meaningful sort of legal framework for us to build upon.” As part of the HSUS “hands-on” programs,teams of staff and volunteers are assembled for disaster response, animal rescue, and for animal fighting and puppy mill cases. According to Pacelle, HSUS can leverage images from these programs to raise public awareness that animals are in crisis situations every day across the country. Pacelle then covered the third portion which is Corporate Reform. Pacelle stated, “We live in a capitalist society where corporations produce the products that so many of us consume.They employ millions and millions of people. We want them as part of their broader mission of social responsibility to include animal welfare. We ask them to try to reach a higher standard. So this is where the anti-animal testing policies come in and the no gestation crate policies. This is vital work for us and we in HSUS spend a tremendous amount of time on it.”’ The final segment of Pacelle’s speech, which focused on Public Policy and Enforcement, should be a major wake up call for everyone on how far the HSUS tentacles continue to invade our communities pretending to dispense mainstream values. Pacelle introduced this segment saying that laws in a civil society are not only designed to keep order but to reflect the values which are basic to society. The laws are not designed to change everybody; they are designed to deal with those who are increasingly viewed as (moral) outliers in society. The law addresses these outlier cases of people who are engaging in conduct that is no longer acceptable. The conduct may have been acceptable at one point, but it is no longer acceptable today. Pacelle reminded listeners that it is up to them to advance social progress for animals just like the other great causes of civil rights, anti-slavery, and women's rights. He then announced that HSUS now had State Councils in place in half the states in order to expand the HSUS reach and support HSUS state directors. The councils cover equine and farm animal protection, law enforcement, faith, and park animal protection and HSUS plans to have these councils in all 50 states. Pacelle informed the audience that these structures were being created to empower those committed to the animal rights industry and to advance the ideals of social reform. He reminded listeners that social reform is not perfectly linear with consistent forward progress. Felony and increased animal cruelty penalties, ending use of gestation crates, corporations enacting animal welfare policies sometimes move a step or two forward toward progress and then a step back. To quote Pacelle, “That's the nature of a social movement -- especially when you've got big adversaries.” We may be used to the animal rights rhetoric and vegan agenda; however the really disturbing part of this new“structure” plan is the HSUS District Leader Program now in place. This program is designed to engage people in all 435 Congressional Districts and have those District Leaders lead political efforts to advance federal legislation by concentrating on influencing members of Congress. Below is the ambitious position description for a District Leader as posted on the HSUS website. The purpose is to help HSUS advance and accelerate animal protection priorities for companion animals, farm animals,and wildlife with legislation at the local, state, and federal levels. Under the guidance of HSUS staff, the Leader is to develop an action plan for successful completion of one goal related to Legislative Advocacy; one goal for protection of Companion Animals, Eating with a Conscience, or Wildlife Protection; and one goal related to growing the“movement.” The Leader is also expected to participate in the state Humane Lobby Day. The Leaders are expected to organize grassroots activities, attend community events and meetings, and will be given a 'Toolkit' with program ideas. Qualifications for District Leader positions include a commitment to the mission of HSUS; willingness to cultivate strong relationships with elected officials and lawmakers; and willingness to recruit new members, among other requirements and abilities. It should be noted that these are volunteer positions and HSUS membership or greater philanthropic commitment is required. Pacelle explained to listeners that this new structure being developed for the District Leader program was very important. It is not just political. The Leaders will work with school districts to establish Meatless Mondays; connect with small farmers to unite them against “factory farms;” work with animal shelters on spay/neuter initiatives in the community. The program is designed to build an army in every community in the United States and it is well underway. In addition to the District Leaders,HSUS plans to include within this framework County Leaders in all 3,100 counties across the U.S. Quoting Pacelle, “Our ambition is to have thousands and thousands of people involved. If we get this done, we’re going to be hell on wheels.” Permission to cross post The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated. Susan Wolf Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators [email protected]

A fairly unknown issue and subsequent legislation; which from a biological perspective is most concerning to waterfowl hunters and conservationists; has farther reaching implications to conservation funding; as well as effecting the balance of power in the socio-political dimension of hunting and wildlife management policy. Please sign this petition to allow NY's state wildlife agency to continue to make management decisions about mute swans that are consistent with the rest of the Atlantic Flyway Council. In addition to the importance of eradicating this deleterious introduced species; interference with policy regarding mute swans can set a precedent for politics to guide policy regarding other alien species and ultimately, all native species as well. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/832/485/616/veto-s-065889-a-and-a-08790-

You asked for my list, here it is: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/hunting-related-legislation.html

This guy is a friend of mine, competent. Tell him I sent you. http://www.xstreamguideservice.com/

This is another comment requiring an unrelated two-part reply.... Part 1: From what I know about you, you are a deer hunter, primarily an archer.... From your perspective I would agree, the DEC regulations are accommodating... However, outside the realm of deer hunting there is much to be desired and there are many changes that should be made. Part 2: I think most people understand the uncertainty of new elected officials. However the implication you are making is what, keep things the same? Please, be serious. Lets just do away with elections then. Perhaps if you were actually contacting the legislature about a particular initiative, and experiencing the frustration of certain lawmakers being disinterested to arrogant, you would be pleased with the prospect of working with a few new people. No offense Bello, but on this one you are calling the shots from the sideline....

I disagree that hunting as recreation can not be separated from its function as a population control tool. In opposition to Question 1, Maine DIW justifies uses of bait, hounds, and foot snares to control bear populations. The DIW was reconciling the role these three methods have in boosting bear harvest and therefore being important in population management. That is not the same as your assertion that the primary use of hunters IS population management. Hunting benefits the conservation of all wildlife, not just game and reaches beyond nuisance wildlife or population control. In essence you are stating that controlling over-population is the most important function of the wildlife department within the DEC. That may be the perspective of hunters but it is not true and that idea would not appeal to the public majority. The public at large would, however, be receptive to the broader benefits derived from hunting and that is where we MUST begin to focus. Restated to be clear that I am not going back on myself: Population control was relevant to Question 1 and the initiative was indeed reconciled with population control. However the population control card is not relevant to every controversy surrounding hunting and does not resonate with everyone.

The issue really is not if it is fair chase, but if it is sporting. Trap shooting pigeons out of a box is fair chase, because the birds can escape, but it is not sporting. Turkey shoots in which turkeys are tied to a stake and shot at is not fair chase because they cant escape without an act of God... The use of foot snares, hounds, and bait for bears would qualify as fair chase and sporting. But hunting is a sport which the regulations pertaining to method have historically been guided by what the local hunters deem sporting. But the agency does not accommodate the sporting community if doing so would conflict with sound conservation or management. If the state wildlife agency thinks the method would result in excess harvest, the agency might not allow the hunters to have it their way and set greater restrictions. Likewise, if the agency wants a heavier harvest, they will allow methods that will effect that result even if some hunters protest. In NY some hunters thought the crossbow was not sporting in the bow season. However, the DEC prioritized population control over the cultural wants of a segment of hunters. Some hunters in Maine may think traditional bear hunting methods are not sporting. Maine DIW however, feels the current harvest level should be maintained and would have rejected the referendum even if it was proposed by sportsmen. Interestingly, Maine's infamous Question 1 was not driven by sportsmen, it was driven by anti hunters. It was crafted by persons who even though they do not hunt, opine what is sporting. Never the less, in the context of method, it is easy to separate population control / nuisance and disease abatement from recreational hunting. Same as it would be easy to separate the outlawed practices of market hunting with modern day sport hunting. For example, in a CWD containment area, deer will be shot around the clock and with the aide of lights. That has no place in sport hunting. Relaxed regulations and/or an array of methods allow sport hunting to function as a population control tool; however this creates problems with the recreation aspect for some hunters and tarnishes the public's image of hunting/hunters. As controversies evolve, as they always do, discussions become convoluted and the recreational aspect of hunting gets lost. At this point opponents of hunting feel if a non lethal alternative exists the justification for hunting is removed. Since this has been occurring so long, most hunters are no longer able to articulate why they hunt, at least in a manner that will strike a cord with the public majority. This is compounded when new hunters are coached by other hunters. Those new hunters can not effectively defend hunting. Then that in turn creates a problem with recruiting new hunters who become wary or turned off by poor articulation. I hate to say this, but some Darwinism might be operating and we are only recruiting the less mentally endowed. I am not saying the antis are recruiting rocket scientists to their side because obviously that isn't true.

I have heard someone else on hear say that in the past. Look at the state of Maine Question 1. They were lucky it was defeated yesterday. So was Rhode Island when there was a push to ban dove hunting a few years ago. But a few years ago California lost bear and lion hunting with hounds and Michigan lost doves. For some time a number of states banned leg hold traps. One state only allows cage traps... The commissioner of the DEC has the authority to close hunting seasons, but only the legislature and the governor can authorize the DEC to set new seasons. Not only do antis succeed in blocking new seasons, they are successful in blocking new hunting opportunities on public land closed to hunting. Beside hunting regulations, there is an organized movement to change the entire way wildlife agencies operate. The people working in the wildlife field and the people educating new biologists are increasingly non hunters that may favor different approaches, such as non lethal control methods for example. They also will seek alternative funding strategies rather than allow hunting to fund conservation. Maine Question 1: http://www.pressherald.com/2014/11/04/long-debate-over-bear-hunting-in-maine-ends-at-the-polls/

I don't think anyone with a sense of numbers really gave Astorino a snowballs chance in an incubator - but he got many more votes than then expected! Second - the GOP swept the federal arena, not sure that's a good thing, but it sends a message.... Most importantly we dumped the states second biggest anti-hunter - Grisanati is GONE! Good riddance... We retained the few friends we have as well: Lalor, Nojay, Tenney, Difransico, Ricie, Valesky and a few others.... Only 34,000 votes were cast in senate 11 and we think we can remove Avella in 2 years based on that, despite he got 90 % of the vote... A number of punks retired as well... The assembly 106 was decided with only a spread of about 100 votes - tell me one vote does not matter sometimes..... Here is the most significant: Grisanti gone means a new chairman of the senate environmental conservation committee.... The retirement of Sweeney means a new chairman of the assembly environmental conservation committee. We need to focus on these chair positions, this is vital to all DEC bills unless the governor wants to push something through the budget... Stay tuned to NYDH's website and social media...

The first thing that strikes me is did Pitman Robertson grant money ever fund any part of this game farm... The second thing that strikes me is the use of the land for wind farms. Since wind farms are detrimental to birds and bats, as well as eyesores and a source of noise pollution, it is very ironic conservation land / infrastructure is being converted for this purpose... As far as the OP comments regarding SCOPE and county federations I don't think these entities keep their member constituency apprised of anymore than what interests and concerns the board officers and the commercial hunting industries ( manufacturers, magazines) who are obviously collude with politicians. These organizations claim to represent the so-called unorganized sportsman but the fact is they don't even represent all of their paid members, only the sheep (followers). The loss of small game hunting tradition in NY is to the delight of both the anti hunters and a portion of poorly informed non-shooting conservationists who understand that when big game hunting becomes the sole emphasis of hunting loss of hunter recruitment through ATTRITION will be accelerated. Compared to NY's annual production of 30K game farm pheasant, PA averages 220K. This year PA raised a bumper crop of 330K birds. PA also promotes its pheasant hunting and other small game opportunities. Another sharp contract is the attitudes of the respective face book pages. The NY DEC face book page is heavily laden with anti hunters who protest every whisper of hunting by the DEC. PA Game Commission however; asks its followers to post pictures of their grouse and pheasant harvests.... I follow a few other state wildlife agencies on FB and only NY DEC is hijacked in this manner. Here is a PA Game Commission video about their pheasant propagation. As you can see, the attitude is much different. They also just posted this same video on their FB page, speaking of such. I don't agree with the wildlife chiefs assertion that small game populations are on the decline however. That is true compared to the past, but not in the context the majority of sportsmen and others will take it. For example, I just hunted a freshly stocked PA game land: we flushed zero pheasant but did flush 4 grouse and 2 woodcock... And I am not talking about re-flushes, this was 6 different birds... Small game habitat and thus game populations were better in the past, but keep the context clear... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA0Am_d9Yxk&list=PLdqHbfhW8Hu2byhk7czCyxn3WZWV884JS&index=1

http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?7jjm2--3srij-ydbvlc7&_v=2

http://secure.campaigner.com/Campaigner/Public/t.show?7jjm2--3srij-ydbvlc7&_v=2