mike rossi

My understanding is that the NY Farm Bureau or some other group of organized farmers applied for a grant to pay the USDA Wildlife Services. The local farmers apparently have had bad experiences with hunters and/or recreational hunting did not remove enough deer. Not hard to believe because nobody gets up in the morning thinking I hope I get a doe today and that isn't going to change in less than a generation turnover. Outside of privately owned farmland, the DEC and local governments, including the Indian tribe that exists on Long Island, can expand hunting opportunities on public and tribal land.However, if deer react to hunting pressure by leaving public lands and entering farm land and suburban corridors, little is done in the way of population reduction and damage abatement - damage to crop, garden, and homeowner landscaping might actually increase if deer abandon the public areas. I am sure this had much to do with the change to archery set back regulation.

Another issue you raised was that NJ estimated 7,000 people would participate in dove hunting. The pejorative response to that would be: Would you prefer 70,000? However a better response is that NJ has a trapping season for 759 people. A Bear season which 10,000 permits are issues with a hunter success rate of 1.3%. The bear season isn't even its own season, it is concurrent with NJ's 6 day firearm buck season so it provides no additional hunting opportunity except that deer hunters with a permit may opportunistically take a bear. A success rate of 1.3% among 10,000 permit holders isn't exactly comparable to the recreation a mourning dove season would create, even if only among 7,000 participants. I bet very few people who harvest a bear also harvest their buck over those 6 days as well, so where is the big gain in recreational opportunity? Both trapping and bear hunting are highly controversial as I am sure you know - actually much harder to defend than mourning dove hunting. The numbers in NY are not much different based on percentages and land area. NY has 35,000 waterfowl hunters and 5,000 trappers, though the DEC claims during years of high fur prices up to 10,000 trapping licenses have been sold. I found no data for NY bear hunter numbers. Bear hunting is so lightly participated in in NY that the state recently committed to development of a strategy to create a bear hunting culture,( ie. encourage bear hunting) in the state as part of its ten year black bear management plan.

A proposal in Jersey to change the status of the mourning dove from a "nongame species" to a "game species" was published in the NJ state register February 21, 2012 - look at page 101, comment 42 and scroll down the NJ DEP's response. A game species is indeed "partially protected" when a hunting season and other regulation of its harvest is established. However a game species is fully protected when a hunting season is not established. Here is the link: http://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/adoptions/adopt_120221b.pdf

The law suits that you refer to are not for money, they are seeking court injunctions to delay hunts until an EAS and/or an EIS can be completed. Granted, that can divert the work duties of staff from other duties, but it should not be characterized as if a wildlife agency is digging into a war chest. The Federation would be another matter. Although the HSUS pulled that hat trick in NJ with the bear season, and they have done it elsewhere, including against the USFWS; the courts, at least on the appeals, have rejected these kinds of complaints over and over to the point that this legal maneuver ( an embellishment modeled after stipulations in the endangered species act) is no longer viable for anti hunting organizations, including the HSUS. Case Law would be researched by the defendant's attorney and presented to the judge. That case law would show a series of precedence which these complaints are rejected or thrown out on appeal. Furthermore, the information compiled on our website and facebook page is sufficient for court defense and then some. There is enough info on them to file a motion to dismiss which probably would be granted. About an hour ago I emailed Andrew Barnett, it will be interesting to hear what he says about the situation in your state.

Doc, Historically whenever dove hunting is proposed in any state, there has been opposition. As we stated, the antis will try to influence politicians and public opinion. In order for a dove season to pass, supporters must win the public opinion battle. It is not impossible to overcome emotional reaction. As you pointed out, a frequent tactic of anti dove hunters is comparing mourning doves with other birds that frequent suburban areas and/or bird feeders. The best way to diffuse that style of arguing is to describe how mourning doves differ from whatever species they are being compared with.

In the past there was quite a bit of interest in a hunting season for mourning doves in that state. You didn't say when NJ designated mourning doves as game, but I am almost positive it was only three or four years ago. In the eighties deer management changed when biologists learned they could kill many more deer than previously believed. During that era deer hunting, and in particular, bowhunting for deer, became very popular in NJ and interest in other game waned. Since that time NJ legalized deer baiting; crossbows, bear hunting; bobcat and coyote harvest; and wild turkey hunting was in its infancy in NJ. Those six regulations changes would have been considered very radical in that state not long before; so I do not doubt that there was an attitude change toward dove hunting. You would think with the crowded hunting conditions in that state, a minority of sportsmen there would realize the value of having a season for doves which relatively few would participate in.

That is not true across the nation. Mourning doves are the number one game animal in the USA. NY hunters generally do not have experience with dove hunting and relatively large dove populations are fairly recent in the state. Your statement resonates with the conclusions of the DEC. However, those conclusions are based on two dove-related survey questions included on a broader survey and one additional question a year or two later on the same survey. I don't think it is a surprise that when a person is asked a question they are not informed about, that they decline to answer. Furthermore, the annual national survey of wildlife-dependent recreation performed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the survey of hunting participation performed by the US Census Bureau both indicate the largest growing segment of people who hunt are Hispanics. Hispanics are culturally connected to dove hunting. These surveys have not yet started to evaluate the growing locavore/foodie movement.It is common sense that people who hunt entirely for food do not want to eat only venison but varied wild meats. We have also discovered many NY residents who are Maltese-Americans have experience hunting old-world doves and support dove hunting in NY. Currently, in addition to the efforts of NYDH, the NY State Conservation Council passed a resolution to establish a dove hunting season. Additionally, according to their online memos, another entity, the NY Conservation Fund Advisory Board is developing a mourning dove management plan. Notice I emphasize that this is according to their online memos, reason being wildlife plans are outside of their scope and expertise, but whatever. What the DEC and NY politicians are concerned about is not the level of support for dove hunting; but the level of opposition to it. In 2006 the HSUS collected about 271,000 petition signatures in Michigan to put a referendum to ban dove hunting on the ballot during the general election. Although the HSUS succeeded in Michigan they made the same attempt in Rhode Island a year or so later, and failed. Recently NY issued a public review of their mute swan management plan. As a result of the public review received the DEC announced they are revising the plan to remove strategies involving lethal control including setting a hunting season. This shows the antis are organized in NY and can gather many petition signatures in this state. Interestingly, mute swans are one of the HSUS favorites and yet the HSUS stayed away from this one and the lobby was by local grass root anti hunting organizations. I believe, as arrogant as this sounds, that the HSUS did not want to deal with NYDH. We speculate that they will be emboldened by the success of the grass roots organizations and will become involved when the revised mute swan plan is again opened for public comment, which should be in the next few weeks, by the way. If the HSUS does in fact make its grand appearance, we are going to consider that proof we (initially) deterred them. The mute swan, unlike the mourning dove, has been classified as a game bird in NY since 1970 and therefore the DEC certainly has the authority to set a hunting season for them without approval from the legislature and governor. FYI: In your state of New Jersey, a few years ago, mourning doves were classified as game birds, although no hunting season has been set. Few hunters in NY have been aware mute swans were classed as game since 1970 and I suspect few NJ hunters are aware of the recent reclassification of mourning doves in the Garden State.

Doc, You cant compare blue birds with mourning doves. That is about as unscientific as you can get. Even from a hunters perspective, anyone who has paid attention to either bird species is aware of how they differ and can perceive the sporting qualities of doves even if they never hunted them. We are not out to change the world - if a dove season started this September nary a non hunter would notice. This is only an issue because some people choose to make it one...

The decades worth of surveys done by the states and the FWS all conclude that dove hunting is the most popular and most participated form of hunting in the USA, and more doves are bagged than any other game. The outdoor writers like to fixate on the difficulty of hitting doves and cite that as the reason ammo is burned; but the biggest reason is that there are many birds and many hunters. Fewer hunters hunt grouse and less grouse are encountered by hunters, so less shots are fired in grouse hunting. Same with all the other game. If hunters went one shot per dove, dove hunters would still shoot 20 million to 25 million times each year. I doubt grouse hunters shoot at grouse 20 million times every year.... Ditto for other game.

What better way to end all hunting than by attrition? And what better facilitation of attrition than prohibiting the harvest of the nations number one game animal? Number one game animal in the USA is the mourning dove - even factoring the eight states that do not allow hunting for them.

Mourning doves are the number one game animal in the USA. Despite this, there are eight lower contiguous states that do not allow dove hunting. Dove legislation has been introduced in NY since at least 1990, possibly longer. According to the DEC’s website a number of dove bills have been introduced over the years; however not a single dove bill has ever been moved forward for vote. Based on the responses the DEC received to three dove hunting -related questions included as part of a larger survey of small game hunters; the DEC speculates that NY hunters do not have experience with dove hunting and therefore have not generated enough political support for dove hunting. Lawmakers offer a similar perspective which resonates with that of the DEC. According to one high ranking state senator his office receives many letters and/or petitions opposing dove hunting and very seldom hears from anyone who supports dove hunting. This same senator was convinced by anti-hunters who have contacted him, that doves were not edible. We have created an online presence using email newsletters, a website, two Facebook pages, a YouTube channel, and two Google Plus pages. The purpose of these online presences is to inform policy makers, build political support for dove hunting, engage & organize aspiring dove hunters and encourage ethical hunting practices, attitudes and behaviors. The link to the NY Dove Hunting website is www.NYDoveHunting.weebly.com. From there; you can go to our Facebook, YouTube and Google Plus pages. A focused and factually correct response from sportsmen to lawmakers, newspapers and the DEC can drive the establishment of a mourning dove hunting season. Our online articles provide talking points so that sportsmen can address the controversy surrounding dove hunting in a focused and factually accurate manner. NY Dove Hunting also aims to interest hunters and aspiring hunters in dove hunting. NY Dove Hunting also functions to organize, engage and keep hunters informed about dove hunting initiatives. To accomplish these functions, we need sportsmen to join our network by liking our Facebook pages and subscribing to our YouTube Channel.

Proposed additional local regulations and fees for waterfowlers on a section of Long Island? http://www.27east.com/news/article.cfm/East-End/61018/New-Rules-For-Duck-Hunters-Discussed

Please click on the link below and watch the propaganda video against dove hunting created by an anti hunting group modeled after the HSUS campaign against dove hunting. The HSUS has used a short list of talking points to successfully block dove hunting throughout the United States for many years. In 2003 the state of Michigan established a dove hunting season (with the help of Ted Nugent an avid dove hunter). In 2006 the HSUS repealed the season by summarizing their website page devoted to anti dove hunting into this childish cartoon. The HSUS spent millions of dollars airing this video in segments on Michigan public television in the months leading up to the general election on which a referendum to ban dove hunting was put on the ballot by a petition the HSUS initiated. Luckily NY is not a "referendum state"; however the arguments made against dove hunting in this video, which are the same as the ones on the HSUS website, have been the exact ones they have succeeded with nationwide many times. These arguments have been used and will again be used to influence public opinion and thereby politicians by blasting them in news media, public comment, and to letters to politicians, local newspapers, and the DEC. Sportsmen can redirect public opinion with the correct response to these arguments. However the operant word is "correct". If response from the sporting community must be factually correct. Those facts can be found on NY Dove Hunting's website, face book page, and You Tube Channel. Every premise against dove hunting set forth by the HSUS and this video commercial have been addressed in NY Dove Hunting's online sites. If sportsmen do not bother to respond to editorials and such, or respond incorrectly, public opinion will be influenced against dove hunting. http://youtu.be/4jt6ebPd54U

Plus the meat and oil was utilized in addition to the fur. I don't believe this has any biological justification, but I am not sure. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wto-panel-confirms-eu-ban-on-seal-products-cites-moral-concerns/article18799885/

Algal blooms kill many dogs and interfere with dog training in the off season. Write your federal representatives to support this bill in both houses. As always, pass this on in your networks. http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1254

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=12775&PageID=648010&mode=2&contentid=http://pubcontent.state.pa.us/publishedcontent/publish/marketingsites/game_commission/content/resources/newsreleases/newsrelease/articles/release__041_14.html

I am not sure that in NY, how frequently politics can "effectively get things done", depending on what those things happen to be. Every 10 years the US Census Bureau counts people , for many reasons, but the main one is to establish voting districts based on population. In NY, there is a denser population of people south of the Tappen Zee bridge; therefore there are more state assembly districts and state senate districts, especially assembly districts. Lawmakers cater to the contemporary , local values of the people they represent. More down state people means more down state lawmakers means more down state values being expressed in laws governing the entire state. The root of the problem is public opinion. To get at thee root you must change public opinion. Pretty hard to do when others are trying to influence public opinion in the other direction. The sporting community put a lot of resources into recruiting youth the last decade. Besides the fact that most of these youths are from hunting families and were not really 'recruited" a better target demograph would have been young people approaching voting age or early voting age, like 17 to 19. Get this age cohort hunting AND voting pro gun/hunting and the "tide" will ebb and flow much quicker.... However, as we have been saying, over and over: it is easier to get the public to accept hunting and guns than it is to get individuals to become hunters and shooters. Therefore the emphasis should be on acceptance, not recruitment. Fact of the matter, which most people on here do not want to hear; is that both acceptance and recruitment will never be achieved with hornography and spuragraphy. The public cannot relate to trophy hunting and to the youth it especially sounds uncool, nerdy, weird, and elmer fudish... Furthermore, the true additions to hunting and shooting are... No - not women... But Hispanics and locavores. These groups are after food - period, and they don't want to eat venison every day. The down state assembly is heavily represented by Hispanic lawmakers, and that's a good thing because Hispanics like to hunt or they want to learn or they did it in their old counties and would like to reunite with the activity. Likewise, the locavore movement is heavy down state. This is a good thing - the down state nemesis which has plagued us might actually turn tides...

Here is the link to the report which summarizes the public comment which the DEC received on this plan. Many hunters give a variety of reasons why they do not participate in public comment and an even greater number of hunters do not even know what it is. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/bearplanapc2014.pdf

Honestly, no, I do not... I was in an assembly members office yesterday about a different issue and they were more interested in talking about the SAFE Act and coyotes with me... I went online and basically verified what I was told and reported it here in this thread. I have expressed my concerns with habit of sportsmen of getting on the wrong trail and creating traditional myths that stick for generations. We need to learn our crap. I am not excluding myself from that, although I really would prefer concentrating on ecology and not politics. Another thing, are you not from Skelo's and/or Klein's part of the world? Ever think of driving down to their offices and getting a little (friendly) dialogue going with them?

The senate and assembly "leaders", who are Skelos and Klein had major role in this... Per Wikipedia: "In 2013 Dean Skelos, as senate leader was responsible for suspending senate rules and bringing the NY SAFE Act to the floor, he later voted for the SAFE Act and advocated its passage." Jeffery Klein, the assembly leader probably did the same thing in the assembly, but that is merely a guess. Skelos is a senate republican from district 9 which is a section on Long Island near the towns of Freeport and Far rockaway. Klein is a democrat ( or independent democrat some crap like that) who represents assembly district 34 which is the Bronx area. Before you all go and try to beat them up with an NRA flag, keep this in mind: Nothing moves in the environmental conservation committee until it gets a green light from Grisanti and Sweeney. Then, if a bill passes those committees it will not move to a vote by the general floor unless Skelos and Klein authorizes it to. So, I keep hearing this catch phrase about "one man". You have used it so has western NY buck hunter and so has the NY outdoor news. Maybe you are right, but please reconcile what you say with the process relating to the role of the so-called leaders and the statement from wikpedia about Skelos.

I don't doubt your dog does well and your trainer is talented, but I want to put marking in perspective. Generally your dog's marking ability will develop from hunting experience more so than training. A trainer should implement exercises that enhance a dog's marking ability, but few of us hunt in permanent blinds located near traditional waterfowl passes with fresh birds throughout the season. More typical hunting is very mobile and from makeshift blinds. The point being, is the dog seldom has a perfect view of falling birds and common training exercises to enhance marking only do so much, even if the trainer works the dog in heavy cover. Standard marking drills are very akin to Pistol Pete's complaint about how AKC hunt tests and trials are run. If a trainer uses a bird thrower dressed in white, using large white bumpers, shooting at the throw instead of at the line, a nearly blind dog can mark. I do this to, but extend the marks out to 1/3 of a mile and it is mainly to exercise the dog's muscle rather than eyeballs. Overdone this can create a lazy marker however. Reason I raise this is because of your comment about having to cast your dog now and then. We all have to cast our dog now and then - otherwise why even bother to train a dog to line, stop, and cast, (that is do a blind retrieve), but one should not trivialize the importance of good marking. As you continue to hunt your dog, unless you over do it with blinds and AKC style marking exercises, your dog will mature into a better and better marker. On the other hand, if you get hooked on tests and/or trials, you might develop an over-dependent dog that might perform on a trial/test course, but in actual hunting conditions looks for direction and 'pops' on every mark that's not a straight "lay up". I also don't want anybody to get the idea to use one of those hand held bumper-launchers that resemble guns at the line.( I don't mean winger-zingers, I mean the hand held gadgets). This is not a remedy to the problem of the shot at the thrower instead of the line. I have encountered dogs started this way that actually leap at the gun barrel at the shot, very dangerous off course and the dog is not marking at all, rather than expecting a dove or mallard to fly out of the gun barrel. If you have this product throw it in the trash. It wont even be useful a way from the line with a helper either, because of the reason I already described.

Here are some videos that didn't make our editor's cut, plus a private dove lease in Pennsylvania available. Hunters Take Note This Farm Has Doves Hunters Take Note This Farm Has Doves View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo The Complete Dove Hunt- Texas Parks & Wildlife-[Official] The Complete Dove Hunt- Texas Parks & Wildlife-[Off... View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo Dove Hunting - CookIN' Gone Wild: Field to Table S2 E3 | Indiana DNR Dove Hunting - CookIN' Gone Wild: Field to Table S2 E3 |... View on www.youtube.com Preview by Yahoo

Never mind...

I will take your word for that, but it still is a matter of principle. The sporting community likes to drum up worthless controversy, but I think this is still a good pass along email because it demonstrates the gall and arrogance of so many elected officials...

he U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION, DISARMAMENT ---” HOORAY - 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below... In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms T...rade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty." The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented aninternational gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.: Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL)j Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.