mike rossi

When you buy ammo, you are already indirectly paying a 12% excise tax for wildlife restoration. I know its hard for some of you hardcore right wing guys to use the Wildlife Restoration Act interchangeably with the Pitman-Robertson Act, but it is what it is... I also know that the NRA American Hunter and/or Hunt for Truth published a lengthy article which was quite erroneous, including statements that PR funds are only to be used for game species and hunting. Not true. Like it or not, PR funds will be used to leverage state money to conserve species impacted by plumbism: eagles, California condors, and many others. Wouldn't it make sense to forfeit some ammo and maybe pay a nominal amount more for green ammo and burn less of the conservation fund on wildlife impacted by plumbism? Don't hunters "pay for conservation"? When they banned the leg-hold trap in NJ (1982?) they made it illegal to possess those traps in the state, did they pay trappers? That was pre ebay too. Some of the same people who fought against banning the leghold are the same people fighting today to ban lead ammo... Its not about animal rights...

Yup. There is a lot of established knowledge derived from research about the negative impacts of lead ammo on both wildlife and people who eat game killed with lead ammo. The arguments by organizations representing hunters made to invalidate the known facts are not at all compelling. There is also mounting evidence from ballistic testing showing that non lead ammo is not inferior from a shooting perspective. I would like to know what the motive of organizations representing hunters is for resisting the facts...

Hunting for the truth is not based on good science.

If you are positive the geese are not using the ponds, then you will have little luck calling and decoying resident geese to an area they are not using. That is even difficult to do with migrators, but resident geese have a routine they stick to until disturbed. If you cant hunt were you have been seeing the birds, you need to follow them or somehow figure out where else they are going. If you find they are using another area you can legally access or get permission and where hunting can be done safely, your in luck. If you cant hunt where they are actually going, then look for an accessible and huntable spot between two areas they are using. If they happen to fly over that area low (really low) you can get some pass shooting.

http://www.ruffedgrousesociety.org/UserFiles/File/NY%20Hunt%20Invitation14.pdf

Does the Western LI Canada Goose zone even have an early season? I believe it does not. That might explain why you don't see any resident geese, maybe there aren't any in the area. That doesn't mean the migrators don't hit the area later in the autumn....

https://twitter.com/nydoveHunting Use hash-tag: #NYDoveHunting

As I previously stated, Robert Sweeney, the assembly environmental conservation chairman is RETIRING. Since the en-con chair has the power to stall bills until they expire; as occurred with one of the crossbow bills; who is appointed to chair is something we have a major stake in. I did some research and verified that the en-con chair in the assembly will indeed be appointed by the speaker, that is Sheldon Silver. I am trying to figure a way sportsmen can influence Silver's decision in this matter. Is there any history of sportsmen influencing this appointment? Is there any ideas out there?

OK, here is the entire list of who is running against who in the September 9 Primary and/or the November 4 General Election. It is also a list of who is not challenged, therefore stop complaining about those incumbents unless you think you can impeach them.... http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=whofiled

Arnold dropped out of the race so it is just Ortt. Now Ortt faces democrat Johnny Destino from Niagara Falls in the general election. Here is the article: http://rochester.twcnews.com/content/politics/760605/gia-arnold-drops-out-of-race-for-62nd-district-state-senate-seat/

If we concentrate on sticking to the facts, instead of sticking together, there is no vice in making the facts readily accessible - because the people who will not dig a little are indeed the target of propaganda. A voting record cannot really be disputed as fact. Either could someone's responses to survey questions. If this data is embellished in a summary that favors the authors agenda, then I would agree it is conditioning them not to be independent thinkers. However, merely publishing what is on the record, so to speak, certainly does allow one to make an informed decision. Besides, your premise is mute if not twisted, because it is more common for the voter, loyal to a political ideology, to allow themselves to be guided only by what is readily made available than it is common for he/she to conduct research. If an organization wants to bring to light to its constituency, issues relevant to it, but not necessarily addressed elsewhere, I do not see why that is negative. For example, if New York Dove Hunting asks candidates about their attitudes toward mourning dove hunting, protecting the state pheasant farm, and the spread of mute swans, and makes those responses or refusal to respond, available to its member constituency, I don't see how that is excess data which will be counter-productive as you are suggesting.

I will leave that up to you... I will educate a few about hunting and conservation...

The person who developed this strategy retired from federal affairs consulting in 1995. Bob Kane is a bird hunter who runs Brittany spaniels. I used to correspond with him on a hunting dog forum several years ago. Here is an article about Bob Kane and his internet-based organization using the data collection you say is a waste of time or whatever you said. http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp

"To gather all that data and post it here for a few to look at and others to complain it is here is way more than I plan to do". That does not encourage others. That statement would be appropriate if you were talking about jumping off of a cliff. We are talking about tackling a project. Its a tough project, and I am not suggesting anything is 'sugar-coated", but it could be stated differently... I did get a chuckle out of it though, because you put something together and the peanut gallery does indeed "complain"... However, these sort of things need to be viewed as long-term projects. Many hunters are older and cant get excited about long-term projects and that is understandable to a degree. But there are younger hunters with the future to look forward to and there are older hunters who want the legacy of hunting to be around after they are gone, especially those with children and grand children. By being a hunter education instructor you are already contributing and sacrificing your time. Others might be inclined to tackle this project...

Elmo, Thanks, I did not know that. However, that does not help the situation regarding this site's appearance to new people including non-hunters who might view the site out of curiosity. Notice I said non-hunters, not anti-hunters, there is a difference. I don't think whether youth and/or new hunters seeking a hunting site will be repelled by the appearance of an emphasis on party politics is mute enough to even deserve an argument. Kind of like the claim that shooting a deer with a crossbow is just as difficult as shooting one with a straight bow, recurve or a compound, yet there was heavy participation in that debate and for a long time to boot. But if you all want to go on and on about how discussions that are irrelevant and controversial enhance a hunting site, go right ahead....

It would be pretty easy to make two simple changes: 1) Change the format so that most recent posts show at the bottom instead of the top. 2) Create separate forums for "political" topics related to hunting and "political" topics related to things like immigration, taxes, welfare, and all that.

A wide range of activities get folded into the rubric "hunting". Organizations representing hunters have more often supported extractive industries then have sided with environmental groups interested in preserving natural heritage. Conflating hunting participation with right-wing political causes alienates new hunters who come for food. It also alienates the public majority. Acceptance by the public majority is not an option, it is mandatory. Hunting will not remain legal unless it provides co-benefits to both non-hunters and non-game. Its not about sticking together, its about sticking to the facts... Independent thinking creates independent voters and that scares those of high social status, politicians, and with business interests.

If that was directed at me, instead of everyone, I already said I am not undertaking this one. Not only am I too busy, what me and others working on NY Dove Hunting are doing is educational outreach to the public and policy makers. Policy makers including politicians. We are not going to attack them in any way and we are going to assume every incumbent in office will be reelected while also assuming every candidate running for office will be newly elected. NYDH is not about influencing elections, it is about influencing people, including elected officials. As a matter of fact, I have went about as far as I am going to regarding suggestions about elections, so I suggest rather than forgetting about those suggestions, that they are acted on or retained for future use, because unlike other things you wont hear me harping about them over and over. I have my ideas and personal opinions, outside the realm of dove hunting and conservation, and I have expressed them. Also, NYDH is displeased with the 188 to 25 vote against the DEC conservation plan, and we launched a petition to VETO the new law which neuters the DEC, but that action is not the same as elections and voting....

I agree, but there is a disproportionate amount of attention going to the governor's race when there were others who have as much or more responsibility for the SAFE Act and/or are more hostile toward hunting them Cuomo. NY state legislature is comprised of 212 lawmakers in both chambers. Of those 212, 188 voted Anti-DEC, the last day of the legislative session. Many of those 188 are probably STILL endorsed by the NRA, SCOPE, etc... Sportsman who rely on those organizations are not informed about this. Many (most) will not research further an/or are completely loyal to the NRA or SCOPE and will not scrutinize any information they receive from them. As a result, hostile incumbents who are being challenged may be retained because hunters "vote NRA" or 'vote republican" across the board. Or they merely reward lawmakers who voted against the SAFE Act, but otherwise have voted against us. For example, Tom Libious , a republican representing the Binghamton area will show on his voting record that he voted against the SAFE Act. However, if you dig deeper, Libious was instrumental in getting the SAFE Act out of committee by voting for it in the first round, were his vote would be less visible, then voted differently on the floor vote. Two campaign workers for other republicans had told me Libious wrote the SAFE Act, but that is what I was told, not what I said. I was also told that Dean Skelos and Brian Klein used a legal mechanism usually reserved for extreme states of emergency, such as terrorism or a major weather event to expedite the legislative process and move the SAFE Act very quickly. It would be wise to develop a "closer to home" grassroots information clearing house, perhaps off of this site instead of depending on national organizations and big state organizations.

Don't overlook the problem with NEW people looking for a HUNTING site and the first thing they see is a list of posts about party-politics. Especially the youth and/or novice hunters looking for hunting info. I have already stated it is important to teach the new hunter, especially the young voting age and pre voting age, the importance of getting involved to protect hunting - particularly because the career politician should fear the 17 or 18 year old who has a whole lifetime of voting ahead. But I think the forum should be organized differently. I agree the first thing seen should not be politics and it would be wise to exclude them from the most recent post list. Then the G&H L & Political Discussion forum is way too broad and needs to be divided up into sub-forums. I would suggest: 1) Hunting regulations and policy effecting hunting 2) Second Amendment 3) Party Politics 4) Voting and Elections. I also think a Conservation forum and a hunting dog forum would be assets to this site.

This might make it easier people register or encourage people to register: http://www.triggerthevote.org/

Correct about Finch, he voted Pro-DEC by voting no on A08790. However, James Seward, from state senate district 51 voted Yes on S-06589 and therefore Anti-DEC. As a matter of fact, 61 out of 63 state senators voted anti-dec and only 25 out of 150 assembly reps voted Pro-DEC. The two senators that did not vote anti-dec had better things to do that afternoon and decided not to go into work and bother to vote , so therefore we rate the entire state senate anti-dec. The proposal passed both houses and we have a petition to veto this new law you can check it out on this link: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/mute-swans.html

Here is an example of how candidates are evaluated and rated by the Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance. As I said several times, someone should take up this project for NY state reps, I am not going to. Questionnaire: http://saova.org/2010question.html Ratings: http://saova.org/2012endorse.html

To expand on what I wrote in post 3; here is how they play games with the BUDGET. Now we know what "playing politics" means..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRUDNcqBn_M

Should be pinned to the top or have its own site or at least its own forum that is strictly "ELECTIONS & Voting" - because "politics" is much broader. Besides the governor's race, which I do not mean to trivialize and appreciate that this is important to Doc and others, but we have 213 legislators, of which 188 recently voted ANTI-DEC, leaving only 25, all in the assembly, that are not hostile to the DEC. Some of them are unchallenged, cant do anything except attempt to impeach them I guess. Some are being challenged in the September 9 primary and/or in the November 11 general election. Then a few are retiring. This leaves a bunch of people running in the primary and/or election we have no voting record to refer to in order to make an informed decision about them. That calls for somebody to draft up a questionnaire, mail or otherwise deliver it to the candidates, and then post their responses well before the primary and general elections. Taking a step back, nobody has yet posted a list of the districts that will be challenged or vacated due to retirement. A lot of work, but if someone does not do it this year, I doubt there will ever be the motivation in future elections. Another thing that is very important: The Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee Chairman is one of the lawmakers who is retiring. I think who takes over the assembly encon chair position is just as important as who becomes governor. Does anyone know the procedure for replacing him? I want one of the 25 assembly members who voted Pro-DEC to replace him, not one of the 125 other assembly members who voted Anti-DEC in that position. Another petition may be in order to try to influence this. I assume committee chairs are appointed by one of the party leaders or chamber leaders, speaker, or governor. What I do know about the encon chair is that he/she is the first gate. In 2012 or 2013, the assembly encon chair put the crossbow bill into the suspense file until it expired. In 2011, the senate encon chair put the mourning dove bill in the suspense file until it expired. (As a matter of fact that has happened with every dove bill in NY's history). Even if you don't care about doves or crossbows - who is the encon chair in each chamber is of key importance to processing pro hunting bills and not processing anti-hunting bills. As far as me polling the candidates and posting the record, forget it. I already haphazardly posted some information I came across about who is running in the other thread. Feel free to organize that info and research the other candidates - perhaps the republican and democrat headquarters can make it one stop shopping. Myself and the others behind NY Dove Hunting cannot drive the politics. We will give you the science, but it is up to the sporting community to drive the politics. We have been saying this over and over. We cant get a dove bill into the budget like the crossbow coalition did, but we can operate as the nature conservancy did for the crossbow cause.