mike rossi

This happens upstate as well, and I don't mean Orange or Dutchess county. And this problem will grow because as I have said over and over, the FWS and DEC has outreach aimed at encouraging non hunters to recreate on public conservation lands. Also, the sport of bird watching is becoming organized and is growing in leaps and bounds and a percentage of birders do not like hunting. However, this is not the same issue as hunting 150 feet from a house - two different issues. I don't care if it is Long Island or Hamilton County the average person does not want anyone hunting that close to their house or out there setting up a stand at 5 am. I cant believe this is even debated.

http://news.wildlife.org/featured/a-growing-threat/

link wont work, never mind

We have butted heads with sportsmen's organizations and individuals who represent them, about the importance of working with conservation organizations to establish a mourning dove hunting season. Ironically, it was both research funded by these same conservation organizations and testimony by them at the recent budget hearing that is (thee) reason the deer hunters got their beloved crossbow bill passed. Efficient killing of deer fits in with the conservationist's agenda, but in regards to dove hunting they have some concerns centering around target identification and lead ammunition. We have told the big NY sportsmen's organizations that these groups are correct and basically that "NRA Biology" was wrong. We told them it was essential to compromise, but they refused to work with us, putting it lightly. Next thing we know, all of a sudden these sporting organizations adopted position statements to establish a dove season and CFAB is according to their own reporting is " working on a mourning dove management plan". Fine and dandy except we are lost as to what they are going to do with their management plan, they are not DEC biologists or even biologists... We also are glad to see the NYS Conservation Council resolving to establish a dove season. We are not objecting to their "help" or trying to be "credited" - however it is apparent they are concerned someone else might get "credited" with accomplishing what they have failed to do after more than 20 years of trying. However we cannot work with them and not sure if we ever will be able to. So we for now will continue to operate independently of them. One of the things we are asking our network, or members if you prefer, is to look at the following links, particularly Page 4 of the Audubon testimony and Page 7 of the Nature Conservancy testimony, both pages referring to the recent crossbow proposal. It is also useful to read the entire testimony to get a feel for what these organizations are. We need our people on the same page as the conservationists and the first step is to show that conservationists are not our enemy, these documents pertaining to crossbows show that quite well. Here are the links: http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Testimony%20Audubon%20New%20York.pdf http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Testimony%20The%20Nature%20Conservancy.pdf

Never mind... Cancel this reply...

It might be deer move greater distances than a lot of the smaller animals. However birds also carry ticks and move the greatest distances of all... Then again, other research has concluded opossums pick up more than their fair share of ticks but while grooming themselves eat the ticks and therefore considered to reduce tick populations, suggesting we should protect them or encourage their survival... I have more doubt with the effectiveness and soundness of the strategy of spraying permitherin on deer than I do with the theory deer spread ticks throughout the landscape. Try using it on your dog, it doesn't work as "advertised". Delivering it to the deer is another problem; first its difficult to accomplish and after you fool the deer once, try it again. Second, you are putting a toxin into the environment. Also, from the way it reads, it sounds like the plan is to bait the deer and spray the chemical. Baiting/feeding alone has issues, then you are misting a chemical right near the bait, bait which not only deer will hit, but other wildlife. Not a well thought out sound strategy and it is not likely to produce the intended results. As far as hunting being used as a tool to control ticks, I didn't mean that might not help, I was pointing at the political fall-out it will likely instigate.

Those are a drake and hen hooded merganser.

I got news for you, if you all tip over bucks and not doe deer the regs will be revisited at some point... Why the heck do you think the nature conservancy and Audubon helped the crossbow coalition?

Doc, Maybe they are looking at it as a municipal version of "state's rights" or feel it will play out in a Darwinian fashion.

And we also said that this is likely to cause local municipalities to pass ordinances with greater setbacks than the state law, perhaps even greater than the current 500 feet.

Doc, I will take your word for it that (at least in some units) deer pops are increasing, because I don't pay attention to the pop trends of deer. But the social carrying capacity changes too, which is basically peoples amount of tolerance for a species. When and where people want more or less deer enters into management decisions. The old joke about science changing applies too. The latest science is recommending managing deer at much lower populations than previous, not only because of social desires but because deer are thought to lower biodiversity. Notice the crossbow post thanking the NY Farm Bureau - obviously farmers want less deer. But also notice the Nature Conservancy and Audubon Society - they are concerned with high deer populations impacting biodiversity, plus they are looking out for the conservation fund because they know hunting is the key funding strategy of conservation. I guess if the conservationists cant get wolves reintroduced and coyotes protected more they will settle for crossbows. Just curious, what would the bow hunters prefer to share the woods with, crossbow hunters or wild canines?

Federal regulations restrict using "aircraft" to scout for or harass migratory birds. A good argument can be made that drones fit the definition of aircraft under the intent of this law.

We already discussed the use of drones by animal rights groups, here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC7K5BrapNSnk6XcXbpqXNg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9oqH1lpl-9BcVj5H6bracA

Spraying permethrin on deer as they feed to control ticks is ridiculous. The suggestions include promoting hunting, but you cant be a hunter if you are afraid of ticks or tick-borne diseases... Sounds like your local politicians suffer from some sort of disorganized thinking disorder... Now we are justifying hunting to control ticks... Next the antis will be publishing pseudo-science about why hunting is not effective in controlling ticks... Or how hunting exasperates tick populations...

It might be more awakening to see the actual petition, here is the link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/916/267/358/new-york-ban-wildlife-killing-contests/

They got over 21,000 signatures on their petition, check it out: New York: Ban Wildlife Killing Contests author: Alicia Graef target: New York Legislature, Environmental Conservation Committee signatures: 21,046 21,04622,000 we've got 21,046 signatures, help us get to 22,000 overview petition Animal advocates and lawmakers in New York are working to make sure barbaric wildlife killing contests like Palenville's Crow Down and Holley's Squirrel Slam never take place again. Opponents continue to raise concerns over the cruelty inherent in these contests and the dangerous, indifferent, attitudes they promote towards wildlife – especially when it comes to what they teach children about the species we share our landscapes with. Species who are considered pests are often targeted in these contests, but the so-called hunters who continue to support them are completely ignoring not just the role their targets play in the environment, but their inherent value. It's been long known that crows are highly intelligent and social animals who form lifelong pair bonds and live in tight-knit family groups that stay together for years, while squirrels perform a variety of tasks that help forests in their daily lives. While there might not be anything that can legally be done to stop the upcoming Crow Down, there is hope that contests in New York, will become a thing of the past. Animal advocates and lawmakers are supporting legislation that will make it illegal for “any person to organize, conduct, promote or participate in any contest or competition where the objective of such contest or competition is to take the greatest number of wildlife.” Please sign the petition urging New York lawmakers to support and co-sponsor this vital piece of legislation for wildlife. you have the power to create change.

Here is one of many newspaper articles about the Crow Down. Why I am bringing attention to this particular article is because the author actually posted on the hosting Rod and Gun Club's face book page asking for members to comment. I offered him info, but at a price, because he works for a big city newspaper, I also explained I was not a club member. He replied that he was not paid enough to pay me. I learned he was also a college professor and it later occurred to me I heard his name before and remembered I had got into a lengthy debate with him on you tube several months ago. I also offered to consult with the club, for a fee, which they declined. As a matter of fact, I posted this same link on their face book page and I believe they removed it. I explained in my post that this is written by the same guy who posted on their page a few days ago asking for club members to comment for his blog. For some reason I think the club didn't appreciate my post and deleted it... http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/its-crow-killing-time-in-upstate-new-york-and-elsewhere/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=2

The opposition has clearly defined why they are against this and little reference has been made about gun control. The closest thing to gun control is their argument against the participation by children. I wanted hunters to be aware of what these people are saying, not what they are not saying. I did not want to speculate on any ulterior motives or subliminal messages, just the black and white. I am sure that many anti-hunters are also anti-gun, including those actively involved in this particular issue. However your assertion about the underlying motive being gun control diverts attention a way from what actually is germane to this specific issue. Even if your premise that it was all about gun control was correct, they are not using gun control rhetoric to influence public opinion and drive legislation. The information I posted is about the rhetoric that they are using to do just that, and how well it is working for them. Hunters are aware of gun control and active in fighting it. They are not as much aware of what is playing out with the controversy over hunting contests.

One thing is for sure, I have been reading various news reports about this, including the comments by readers. On several occasions persons cited feeding birds as the cause who were chastised by other readers who replied with valid reasons why feeding was not the reason. Another thing I have been reading and caution against saying is statements like it is a good thing the Canada geese; cormorants; and mute swans are starving. I think sometimes feeding waterfowl is a problem, but I am not sure if it had much to do with this particular die-off on the great lakes. Most of the birds that (readily) take hand outs are mallards, Canada geese, and mute swans. The mallards and canadas migrate when food and/or open water gets cut off - largely functions of weather. Mute Swans were some of the birds which starved, but that is explained by the fact they do not migrate and are not native. Introduced species often have competitive advantages, as the mute swans do, EXCEPT when you have an extreme event like this winter. Native wildlife has evolved defense adaptations to cope and often lacking in non natives. Even the so-called non migratory or resident Canada geese move around and will take off for a few days to a few weeks and go 100 or 200 miles away, and I could be wrong, but as far as I know, mute swans do not do the same thing. Other effected birds, besides mute swans - which do not dive for food, according to the reports I have read, have been birds that either forage by diving to a fixed food patch such as submerged plants or mussel beds or chase fish. The reports indicated too many birds in limited open water with not enough food. I am not knowledgeable about all of the effected birds, but I know some of them have migration patterns that are more tied to the time of year than to weather. Although many of these birds "winter" on the great lakes, even those wintering birds are still nesting up north into the Canadian Boreal Forest. The wintering birds and the staging migrators all want to reach their nesting grounds "on schedule". I think that contributes to their stubbornness to take a temporarily step back so to speak. So, even native birds that have not evolved or developed adaptations to extreme events or long term trends (climate change) may not be able to depend on their "old behaviors" to cope with extremes or events. It seems that 'calendar migrators' that depend on historical weather conditions at certain times of the year, at familiar locations, suddenly are thrown a curve ball. There might be other things going on as well. For example I posted here earlier that spring time body weights of one of these birds (scaup) has been decreasing. The other species have not been studied in the same way, but it is possible they also have the same issues going on. If the birds were in better physical condition it is possible fewer might have starved, even though this winter was very harsh with record ice cover. One thing is for sure, I have been reading various news reports about this, including the comments by readers. On several occasions persons cited feeding birds as the cause who were chastised by other readers who replied with valid reasons why feeding was not the reason. Another thing I have been reading and caution against saying is statements like it is a good thing the Canada geese; cormorants; and mute swans are starving.

No this is not about gun control. It is an opposition to a controversial practice incorporated into hunting. (the controversial aspects are outlined in the links provided in the original post.) You totally high jacked everything that needs to be learned from this with that statement. I believe you are one of the several people on this site who indicated you were an attorney at one time or another. Well if this was a court and I was a judge, I would instruct the jury to strike that statement from permissible testimony....

The tax description sometimes indicates how many acres of a tract are considered 'tillable'. Good farm land might cost more too, not only because farmers want it but sometimes developers do too. Agriculture is a tough business occupation to break into and not nearly as mindless as many people believe it is. A lot of things are involved in it.

I think the fishing tournaments have been under scrutiny a lot longer. I remember discussions about them over ten years ago. I think the fish aspect is mostly a management concern with less interest from the animal rights crowd. As we know however, animal rights groups sometimes adhere their agendas to legitimate issues. What I just said is a dangerous statement, because the perception among hunters is generally anything that suggests it is not wise to pull the trigger is part of an animal rights agenda, and of course that is not always true. However, the antis will grand stand on legitimate issues, its up to the sporting community to wise up the this political phenomenon that has plagued us for years.

Here is the position statement of The Wildlife Society. Since they are not a political organization, this statement does not address whether these farms/preserves should be legal, but how the risks they pose should be managed. If anyone thinks TWS (because of its name) is an anti-hunting organization you need to do some back-ground reading, they are not anti hunting and are not political. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/33-Ungulate%20Confinement.pdf

OP; You are not clear if the primary reason for purchasing this land is for hunting. You mention income and taxes. Agriculture and timber harvest entered the comments and discussion. As others said, it is generally not profitable to clear wood land to create agricultural land. The price of a crop lease or even grazing would depend if local farmers were in need of land (demand) and also the yield per acre which is determined by soil type and other factors, including logistics. The value of timber would also vary on species, age, and perhaps logistics and other factors as well, including the current market value (also true with crop and grazing leases). Wildlife managers often use timber harvest, grazing, and crop farming to achieve land management goals - when it is feasible because it will do the same thing you are trying to do, generate income. The income generated does not necessarily turn a profit, but if the land does not have certain attributes you may not be able to get people to work it for free even though agriculture is more profitable than the public majority is aware. However, if your primary objective is for hunting, there are a number of conservation programs you can look into. Most of these projects do not require that you allow public access although some of them do. These programs are administered through the state and federal governments as well as non government organizations. Some of them will provide tax advantages as well. Even conservation programs will give priority to certain lands over others. Any land can be improved habitat wise which translates into more game and other wildlife, but some lands have greater potential than others. 147 acres of mostly wooded land and likely in hilly country with poor soils filled with rocks can be maintained in young forest but not necessarily at a profit. If you do buy this land, I would concentrate on maintaining the six acres which (already) is open land. If you do not periodically disturb those 6 acres it will eventually revert to forest. Maintaining only 6 acres alone requires the expense of equipment and fuel, or you (might) be able to fence it and put domestic livestock on it to keep it grazed down. Many NY hunter/landowners are only interested in deer, turkeys, and hunting on their own land. And many of those hunter/landowners advocate food plots to enhance hunting. I cant really offer much comment on that, however, there are many people who can offer you suggestions if hunting deer and turkey on your own land is your ideal hunting scenario. However, merely adding food plots at locations that offer convenience and/or good shooting positions is not something relevant to the conservation programs I mentioned above.

Reading on hunting contests March 30, 2014: Hunting contests are a growing controversy which will inevitably have to be addressed in the future. Currently in NY State there is much public outcry and two legislative bills aimed at banning hunting contests. “Squirrel Slam” “Crow Down” Senate Bill 4074 Assembly Bill 03661 http://www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/position_statements.asp?area=bgRecords http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/files/killing_coyote.pdf http://www.highplainsfilms.org/hpf/films/killing_coyote http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol26/26-2/39.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hunting_Association http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Environmental_and_Animal_Groups:_Views_on_Hunting