mike rossi

Harry Weisenberg, Assembly District 20, is also retiring. I have no information on candidates, so hopefully someone else will post them as a reply to this post. Consult the below map to see if you vote in this district: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Harvey-Weisenberg/map/

Others need to begin pitching in. I found some more information. Robert Sweeney Assembly District 11, who headed the assembly environmental conservation committee is retiring. So does anyone know who will become the new chairmen? His district averages 32,000 voting democrats and 17,000 voting republicans. No official candidates but the republicans are indicating their candidate might be Shawn Cullinane or Nick Lalota. (Is that the guy who got busted dumping bird carcasses?). The Democrats say they may endorse either Thomas Donnelley, Jacqueline Gordon, or Tony Martinez. Consult the below map to see if you vote in this district: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Robert-K-Sweeney/map/

We did change this link and divided them into two. ALL our links work! If you cant access from this site I don't know why. Type or paste link into your browser. Our links work and we check them several times a day - they work! Waterfowl Hunters DEC Course: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/waterfowl-identification-class.html Hunter Education DEC Course: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/hunter-education.html

ALL of our links work, so I don't know what the error message is all about from this site. Type or paste the link into your browser - ALL our links are working! FYI: Always scroll all the way to the bottom on our website to see everything on the page. http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/legalizing-dove-hunting-and-keeping-it-legal.html

Funny, did you tell them about the Cornell study on birth control which bucks seeking does in estrous dispersed from the experimental areas to the control areas? The deer populations actually increased and the research concluded birth control was not an optimum strategy to control deer populations.. What we are seeing in regards to non-lethal alternatives is just the tip of the iceberg... Most wildlife biology students enrolled in college are females who do not hunt, do not have any experience with hunting, do not have any family members or acquaintances who are hunters. Within a generation, the persons TEACHING wildlife biology at colleges will fit the same profile. State and federal agencies abide strictly by equal opportunity laws in doing their hiring, I believe females are one of the "protected groups" under EOL? If everyone is so concerned about this, why so few have signed on our mute swan petition? Regarding mute swan management, the DEC is being forced to abandon Best Management Practices (BMPs) and instead implement more costly and less effective strategies. As expected, the usual contingent of uninformed, yet outspoken sportsmen have bolstered doing nothing about mute swans. However, doing nothing is not an option. In addition to the DEC operating under 1) a general legal mandate to protect natural resources; 2) various policy agreements to qualify to receive federal funds; there is also a cooperative effort to remove mute swans among many states which includes NY. Furthermore, controlling mute swans does not cost, it pays. Mute swans are already costing money and as their populations grow and disperse the costs associated with doing nothing grows as well. In case someone reading this has not seen the link to our petition and would like to sign it or know more about the issue, here is the link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/832/485/616/veto-s-065889-a-and-a-08790-a/ To watch a brief video that quickly summarizes the mute swan issue here is another link: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/mute-swans.html

Lawdwaz, Dove Huntress's (main) point was that the article did not accurately represent the level of support for mourning dove hunting. Her (secondary) point was that it was also not true that Mike Rossi is the lone contributor to NY Dove Hunting. And she is dead right about both of those points. As far as the writer knowing Dove Huntress, she is on face book. I don't know what better way to get a biography on a person beside linked in or face book unless they give you a resume, CV, or have a research publication record. As for others, besides Dove Huntress and me; although a "cause" page on face book does not list subscribers as personal face book pages do, the profiles of people who post on the page are searchable. We also have had a number of people create videos for us, and have identified them numerous times. Some of the people who have signed our pending petition are also contributors. Bottom line is: the article does not position our movement to promote it. What it is, is an attempt to create a perception of the situation according to how the author wants it to be perceived among the sporting community. In case it is not obvious, the article Dove Huntress posted just above, is actually a rebuttal to this article. The first draft was much stronger, but we toned it down. Be assured , we still have that draft and we are prepared to publish it if someone pushes back. Every grammar/elementary school student is given reading assignments that require reading a story and then indicating to the teacher what he/she thinks is the "Main Idea" of the story. Ask yourself, after reading that article, what the main idea of the author was. Do you really believe that main idea is a promotion of a dove season in NY?

In my opinion, the state should model its public land use policies after the Federal Refuge Improvement Act when the public lands in question were acquired, managed, or if they are research sites funded with sporting license revenue and/or Pittman-Robertson or Dingel-Johnson Federal Aid to Wildlife and Fisheries Restoration Grant Funds. (This is the same federal funds you all have heard about). Below is how the USFWS is to handle multi-use on National Wildlife Refuges as handed down as law from Congress. Link to the complete document is: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/HR1420_qsas.html Question: What direction do the amendments to the Administration Act give regarding uses of the Refuge System? Answer: The legislation tells us that the primary use of refuges is to fulfill the mission of the System as well as the purposes for the individual refuges. The legislation identifies wildlife dependent recreational uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation as the priority general public uses of the System. The legislation establishes these wildlife-dependent recreational uses as "legitimate and appropriate" public uses of the Refuge System where they are compatible with the Refuge System mission and the purposes of individual refuges. Quoting the Committee Report: "Because priority uses like hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and environmental education are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations, they are directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges. If our refuges and the Refuge System are managed well, then these priority uses will, in turn, prosper into the future." It states that these uses should receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and management within the System. It also states that these priority public uses should be facilitated where compatible but does not mandate them. Question: What about uses that are not the priority public uses? Answer: The legislation does not preclude the Service from allowing compatible uses other than those identified as priority public uses. However, the legislation is clear that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The legislation also directs that the Service give enhanced consideration to priority public uses over other general public uses in planning and management. In other words non-priority public uses should only be considered after the System mission, refuge purposes, and priority public uses have been sufficiently addressed.

Look at the link below, is this a good use of conservation funds or DNR staff? Same state that allowed its two-year old mourning dove season to be put on the general election ballot and obviously repealed. If they put their deer season on the ballot do you think the result would be any different? You can see by reading this, that hunters dollars were used for this, and the DNR is addressing the funding in a defensive tone - as if they know its wrong, because it is and they know it. The FWS does periodic audits of each state, it will be interesting how they view it and it may cause Michigan to lose eligibility for federal PR and DJ Funds. FYI: During Michigan's two years of dove hunting; the state required a dove stamp costing $5.00. As has been common in some northern states, the first few years of new dove seasons have light participation, however there was still revenue generated from dove stamps during those two seasons. I don't believe the dove hunters, including the people involved in fighting for the season, ever were given any accountability for the dove stamp fund. Even if it was only $5,000 to $20,000 - where is it or where did it go? Even $5,000 is enough to fund a small habitat project or other significant conservation-related project or program. Look at this: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10369_64258---,00.html

Tony "Baloney" Avella AKA; Frank Sinatra Does this guy look like he should be telling the DEC what to do? How many anti-hunting bills has he sponsored? List them here.. If you click on the map and enlarge it, it shows senate district 11, which Avella represents. Sign our petition and encourage others to do the same!

The organization with the longstanding National Initiative to Ban Mourning Dove Hunting and National Initiative to Ban Pheasant Stocking in trouble - AGAIN! http://kycir.org/2014/07/17/how-a-congressman-his-wife-and-a-lobbyist-mixed-politics-personal-finances/

Can we get 44 more signatures by tonight? What is so special about 188 signatures? Although (in theory) each assembly law maker represents 128,652 men, women, and children, not necessarily voters; and each state senate lawmaker represents 312,550 men, women, and children, not necessarily voters; the reality is how they vote on a bill is their own personal thinking. We are not suggesting that the vote on Tony Avella's or Frank Sinatra's, (whatever the heck his name is) Anti-DEC bill was not influenced by correspondence and petitions by anti-hunters, such as the NY City Artists for the Protection of Canada Geese and Mute Swans, because every lawmaker we have called said they received at least 300 contacts in support of the Anti-DEC proposal. And lawmakers do indeed pay attention to people who weigh in to their offices on pending bills.... The above, being true, still does not change the nature of what we are ultimately suggesting, however; that the 188 lawmakers who voted ANTI - DEC are speaking for themselves, not for all of their constituents. We argue that 188 petition signatures from sportsmen and conservationists should be given equal weight to 188 votes by lawmakers by the Governor. We actually will have equaled the Anti-DEC politicians by only 19 more signatures - because 25 lawmakers did vote pro - DEC. So can we get 19 more signatures by days end? Can we get 44, even better yet? We will continue to gather signatures until the bill is delivered to the Governor. However, if we have 188 or even 163 signatures, we can call the Governor on as to why our opinions have less merit than an equal number of opinions from members of the legislature!

No kidding? My wife is going to get a kick out of this. Anyway, I hope it gives the dove initiative a boost!

I guess with over 8 million acres of public land, with only a small percentage of it being Pitman-Robertson Lands and Duck Stamp Lands, the DEC should abide with the federal policies regarding those PR lands, namely that there are 7 priority public uses, hunting one of them, and activities interfering with those public priority uses deemed "illegitimate". One of the main responsibilities of wildlife agencies is to manage over-use by people. In the current zeal across the country to involve more and more people in outdoor recreation on public lands, while using these new people to mitigate loss of hunting license revenue to fund conservation in the future, agencies have not planned for the future otherwise, namely conflict between user groups and the accelerated extinction of hunting brought on by competing public land uses. Already have some opponents of hunting started tasting blood and are attempting to enumerate the contributions of non-hunters to the various conservation funds, not to compile useful data, but rather use the data for propaganda that they believe, supports their political agenda. Another thing we must keep in mind. The average person seeking a career in wildlife biology is no longer a male who hunts or has been exposed to hunters and hunting. The typical student enrolled in wildlife programs in colleges in recent years is female form an urban or suburban back-ground who typically does not hunt or even know any hunters personally. The next generation of wildlife biologists will not only exist in wildlife agencies such as the DEC, they will also be the persons TEACHING new wildlife students a generation younger than themselves, in the colleges and universities.

For sure the antis and non hunters are flooding the DEC with their participation in this! Don't complain after the fact if you don't fill it out....

First Ever National Dove Hunter Survey Published This Week! Introduction: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/introduction-to-first-national-dove-hunter-survey.html Frequently Asked Questions about the National Dove Hunter Survey: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-national-dove-hunter-survey.html Read the National Dove Hunter Survey: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/national-dove-hunting-survey-2013.html

I took it too, got my two cents worth in... My wife will take it later too I am sure.

Six million gun owners in NY state? Well, then, why not organize a petition to impeach him and circumvent this silly election?

"retired from IBM Endicott were I was a Manager in the Lab for new Products". Really, no kidding, what did you do there?

We are losing ground literally and figuratively. Let the DEC hear from the hunting community on this because everyone else is chiming in! http://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/1716993/DLF-Outdoor-Rec

I guess you can argue, if you choose to argue, that a legal requirement of hunting is the purchase of stamps and licenses and that conservation tax is built into the manufacturer's production cost of guns, ammo, archery items, and certain types of hunting equipment. However, it would not be wise to defend the position hunters are "conservationists". Unless you are a poacher, you are buying licenses and thereby contributing to conservation. However, even the poacher who buys ammo contributes to conservation. But that doesn't make either the legal hunter nor the poacher a conservationist. Very few hunters actually are conservationists, and some nimrods actually do fit the negative image projected about hunters. A better statement would be that hunting contributes to conservation and hunting is the center of the North American Conservation Model. That being said; there is currently a movement to create a federal non-hunters stamp. This organization seeks to enumerate the financial contribution to conservation of non-hunters from hunters. The rationale behind that is the belief the antis share with hunters, that state wildlife agencies and the US FWS can be bought by the highest bidder. If congress eventually approves this stamp, they will find themselves disappointed. A decade or so ago the Duck Stamp was only sold at post offices. Sometime since, a law change by congress allowed sales at other locations. That went on for some time and then anti-hunters got the idea that if they sell them, they can enumerate non-hunters from hunters among their sales, assuming hunters are not obtaining their stamp from them. I only recently learned of this. Although enumerating non-hunters provides important data, the intention behind this is disingenuous. I posted not so long ago about a solicitation for comments on changes about The National Survey. I suggested you guys give some thought about the enumeration of "stay at home bird watchers". Just about anybody from Wayne Pacelle to Dick Cheney can claim to be a stay at home birder. I caution against interpreting this post as suggestive we should make the bird watching community enemies, because they are not enemies, but can easily become one. Bird watching is participated in by more people than is hunting; however hunting is as old as the first human and birding is by comparison a very new activity and they are beginning to become organized and politically involved. FYI: The Nature Conservancy and Audubon NY had much to do with the recent legalization of crossbows in NY. They own a lot of land and some, but not all of their lands, is open to hunting as well. The point I am trying to make is that birding is in its infancy and the animal rights movement is trying to recruit them to their side of the fence. The same exact thing can be said about the "Locavore" movement. The locavore movement is very young and animal rights organizations are working very hard to create an association between locavorism and veganism; however, the philosophy behind locavorism is NOT animal rights nor veganism. Another problem with the hunting community touting being conservationists is along with that they often claim to be (generally) more knowledgeable about wildlife and conservation. This may have had more truth in the past; but with only a small number of exceptions, hunters (generally) do not know very much about wildlife nor conservation, even the game they hunt and the conservation funds they generate. If a hunter is going to be a spokesman for the sport and/or advocate a specific issue, he should be aware of the previous. I am not suggesting every hunter needs to be educated about all of the above. I am, however, cautioning hunters from misrepresenting the facts and/or boasting in a way that provokes conflict. The same logic applies when engaging an issue with another sportsmen. If someone is trying to promote an idea, others should at least have a little background knowledge about the subject before they "debate" it. We spend more time undoing the undermining of other sportsmen than we do projecting our message. And we know that some of you are playing games and/or just spiteful blowhards. We tell the senators and assembly members, that we are relatively young, we are recruiting and educating those younger than us, and therefore the agendas we are pushing will be around longer than their political careers. So undermine all you want, we like to fight...

Since Mute Swans according to a recent supreme court court decision which overruled an earlier decision of a law suite by the Humane Society of the United States against the FWS and the states of Pennsylvania and Maryland; the mute swan is not protected under the Migratory Bird treaty Act, therefore it is not subject to Federal wanton waste laws. Since NY's state designation (done in 1970 by the way) is "game bird" the state might impose wanton waste laws. A limited harvest of native swans is allowed in certain states and hunters certainly do eat tundra and trumpeter swans. I am sure hunters also eat mute swans as well, in the majority of states where they can be taken. I think we are playing out this "can they be eaten" thing way too much. There is a prevalent belief on this forum that geese or other waterfowl do not taste good. This is ridiculous and we have hashed this over and over. Don't hunt them, we need to move on, not reinvent the wheel every day. Your question, although relevant to hunting, obscures the fact that hunting was only ONE strategy that the DEC proposed in its mute swan management plan. The DEC was blocked from carrying out most of its plan, not just opening a hunting season. Even at this point, most people are not informed enough about what has happened and the issue at hand to discuss table qualities without a gross distraction of the issue. I am not accusing you of doing this intentionally, but this is often done intentionally. I will shoot a couple in Pennsylvania this fall and let you know what they taste like. Hopefully they will taste like goose and not like chicken or venison....

The DEC's original plan, which is consistent with a cooperative effort with the FWS and all of the states in the Atlantic Flyway was not a sustainable harvest, but to eradicate them. Every state, as far as we know, except NY and NJ has implemented very similar strategies for mute swan under this agreement among the flyway council. This has also been adopted in other flyways and in Canada as well. It is also notable, that two of the larger organizations which influenced NY's policy are actually animal rights organizations from JERSEY... What makes it more outrageous, is that Jersey's Governor, Chris Christy, is very likely to VETO any proposals to interfere with mute swan management; while the same Jersey anti hunting groups may have failed in their own state, yet succeeded in neutering the DEC in NY, unless Governor Cuomo VETOS this legislation...

The interference with who is guiding management decisions and/or influencing how the DEC proceeds certainly is part of the issue. However, stop and think why political interference is wrong. The reason the decisions were being misguided was because the politically driven revisions were not addressing ecological issues. One ecological issue is with the mute swans overgrazing of SAV. Moose depend largely on SAV as do a variety of native wildlife. If you reduce just one source of natural foods which an antlered animal historically uses, that would at a bare minimum cause that animal to expend more energy. Expending energy (calories) would compromise antler size. If the alternate food source was less nutritious or calorie dense than the SAV that would further compromise antler size. Keep in mind animals of all species usually select what kinds of plants they eat based on how calorie dense and nutritious it is, so if a moose is head bobbing for plants, it probably is because it is of superior nutritive value. Moose may not be the best example of a species impacted by the spread of mute swans, but with the species spreading across NY AND numbers of them increasing 13% a year, who is to say they are not or will not impact either populations or health status/antler size? There are better documented examples of impacts in other species here is a new slideshow we just completed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5XJNQdJT8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5XJNQdJT8

Sooner or later the FWS would question if the costs associated with administering such a program under the justification it is hunter education or recruitment violated assent legislation. The next question would be the effectiveness of the program. The FWS then might disqualify the state from Pitman Robertson grants for diverting license money outside the realm of wildlife restoration, in which a small amount, I believe 1% may be used to administer hunter ed/recruitment/shooting ranges. All the sporting community would read and hear is that there is a problem with "language in the budget"....