mike rossi

Tony Avella http://politicker.com/2014/02/democrats-already-mulling-tony-avella-challenge/ http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/swan-eradication-plan-birds-state-sen-tony-avella-article-1.1614658 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Avella https://votesmart.org/candidate/45056/tony-avella#.Uw-U-XmA3IV http://animalrights.about.com/od/organizationsandactivists/fl/Interview-with-NY-State-Senator-Tony-Avella.htm http://aldf.org/press-room/press-releases/senator-avella-and-aldf-to-announce-lawsuit-against-nypd/ http://bayside.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/avella-to-host-animal-rights-forum-on-jan-17 http://friendsofanimals.org/news/2014/january/public-forum-new-york-animal-protection-issues-senator-tony-avella More,

This is the dude who opposes the Holley squirrel hunt and the DEC's Mute Swan Plan. He is endorsed by the HSUS and is known to be anti-hunting, worse yet he is on the senate environmental conservation committee. http://politicker.co...ella-challenge/ http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/brooklyn/swan-eradication-plan-birds-state-sen-tony-avella-article-1.1614658 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Avella

This is the dude who opposes the Holley squirrel hunt and the DEC's Mute Swan Plan. He is endorsed by the HSUS and is known to be anti-hunting, worse yet he is on the senate environmental conservation committee. http://politicker.com/2014/02/democrats-already-mulling-tony-avella-challenge/

Good job, DU is the best NGO on planet earth... However, I have a favor to ask... One of DU's biggest strengths is that it will not divert from its mission of conserving waterfowl and their habitats. So I am not asking this of you while you man a DU table, however we need someone set up at this show to promote our face book page in support of dove hunting. Ideally someone would have a laptop and an internet connection and subscribe people on the spot, even creating a very simple face book account for people who are still not using it. (include a note with login information and password so they don't forget, perhaps email it to their regular account as well). I want to add Decoy Shows are a great resource for answers to many of the questions asked on this forum about where, when, and how to hunt waterfowl, how to cook them, and they usually have retriever seminars as well. Take a break from antler-porn and check it out. And join DU while you are there!

Here are three letters written for the Massapequa Observer, however they can be adapted to other newspapers and/or the content can be used as ‘talking points’. Newspapers restrict the number of words in letters they publish. These letters are 78 words, 136 words, and 214 words. All newspapers will not publish your letter unless they can reach you by telephone, during daytime business hours. You must provide a daytime phone number, your full name and full address. If you do not and/or you do not answer your phone, they will not publish your letter. LETTER 1. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song did not take into account that the rationale behind the DEC’s plan was to protect the nest sites of native waterfowl, prevent overgrazing of submerged aquatic vegetation, and remove one source of water contamination. There are no nonlethal methods to prevent mute swans from drowning native birds, driving them from nesting habitat, overgrazing SAV, and from defecating in the water. Sincerely, LETTER 2. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song was inaccurate and politically biased. The mute swan plan is not about killing swans, it is about conserving native waterfowl. Public comment should be given careful research and thought; it should not be derived from filter-feeding on propaganda. This biased article was published only two days before the comment deadline. Despite the short notice, the article contained information about the public comment period. It is clear that the intent was to influence readers to hastily comment based only on what they read in the Massapequan Observer and not seek any other information. This article was inaccurate, irresponsible, and politically motivated. Sincerely, LETTER 3. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song was inaccurate and politically biased. The mute swan plan is not about killing swans, it is about conserving native waterfowl. Public comment should be given careful research and thought; it should not be derived from filter-feeding on propaganda. This biased article was published only two days before the comment deadline. Despite the short notice, the article contained information about the public comment period. It is clear that the intent was to influence readers to hastily comment based only on what they read in the Massapequan Observer and not seek any other information. This article was inaccurate, irresponsible, and politically motivated. This article did not take into account that the rationale behind the DEC’s plan was to protect the nest sites of native waterfowl, prevent overgrazing of submerged aquatic vegetation, and remove one source of water contamination. There are no nonlethal methods to prevent mute swans from drowning native birds, driving them from nesting habitat, overgrazing SAV, and from defecating in the water. Sincerely,

Hopefully most are starting to understand how these things play out and how to respond... Biased Newspaper Article http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/news/36111-not-ready-for-a-swan-song.html Letter by Anti following article: http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/opinion/36011-letter-modern-madness-and-the-mute-swan.html Result: Influence Public Opinion Your Response: Write a factual and relevant rebuttal letter to the newspaper. Colloquy: We will be providing form letters, letter writing guidelines, and information on where to send or e-mail these letters very soon. If possible, construct your own letter or modify the form letters without changing the context. If you write your own letter or add to the form letter, be sure to follow the newspapers letter guidelines or they will not publish your letter and you will have wasted your time. Newspapers always require you to provide your full name and address, and daytime phone number. They will attempt to call you three times to verify you wrote the letter. If they do not reach you by telephone they will not publish your letter and you let this opportunity get away. This is NOT the only newspaper to pull this. We need to write as many as we find out about. Any time anything about a bill or a draft plan is released in the news, a DEC press release, or posted on their website; everyone should be on the lookout for antagonistic press. See number 5 for how to do this. It is very simple to be vigilant. Anytime you find an article or press release, you should write in rebuttal if the article is antagonistic toward hunting or sound wildlife management. If the article is neutral or pro-hunting, or on the side of sound ecological principles, it is not as important to write in and we recommend you save your energy for when rebuttals are needed. Do a google search the day after and every day thereafter for about a week, after an article or press release is published, and/or a public comment period opens or closes. For example if you search: Mute Swans New York you will see every article as well as newspaper letters the search engine picks up. You should do three things. First if the letter is antagonistic, write a rebuttal to the publisher. Second, let us know about the article and provide the link. Third, let people in your network know about it and provide them the link.

Dear Mr. Rossi, Assembly Bill A08790 is the companion Bill to S6589-2013 which establishes a moratorium on the Department of Environmental Conservation's plan to declare mute swans a "prohibited invasive species" and to eliminate all of the 2,200 mute swans in the state by 2025.I want to thank you for writing me on this important issue and I wanted you to know I have asked to Co-Sponsor A08790 and call on this moratorium to be established. If I can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call my District Office at 516 561 8216. Sincerely, Brian Curran Member of Assembly, 21st AD

Post them up. Probably best to leave out the auto-replies though...

The draft management plan is not a bill that requires "passing". You are opening the book in the middle of a chapter. You need to read back and then get on the same page. There are however, two bills introduced, before the plan was even finalized I might add, which will stall certain parts of the plan. It would be to your benefit in the future to understand the difference between a dec plan and a bill... The DEC is not allowed by policy and/or law to do that. They can not send out letters, it is up to conservation organizations that are interested in an issue to send out letters to their members. What the DEC can do is develop "outreach" programs to educate the public about an issue. Part of the management plan itself is to create outreach about mute swans. These proposals wont squash that strategy, but I suppose the next thing the antis will want is for themselves to rewrite the outreach to correct everything they say the DEC is wrong about? Or, suggest the outreach needs to be put on hold until it can be updated when all this novel research findings come in.... I am guessing they didn't even think about that part while they focus on the killing and pinioning, but I am only half joking, they think they are who should write science with their opinions, just like hunters think, lol... . Don't take offense, this is going to sound combatant, and like a liberal elite, but you are supposing that sportsman are the key to actively pursuing this, if so why have they not then? It is the conservation organizations, not the sportsmen's organizations who have reached out to their members. Audubon New York; American Bird Conservancy; National Wildlife Federation; Ducks Unlimited. I am not aware of the NYS conservation council or any county federations doing anything. And from personal experience interfacing with them, they are not interested in and/or are unable to understand things along this vein. This forum is a representative subsample of the attitude which pervades the sporting community, how many are interested and taking an active role that read what has been posted about the issue? That is why I know that when I post things of this nature that I am reaching only a small percentage, plus an additional small number who though are not interested now, will develop a mature conservation ethic and have this information to refer back to in the future or know where to look for it.

February 23, 2014 We have been making the unpopular premise that it is wise to abandon the practice of uniting merely for solidarity when merit is absent, to avoid public image issues, bad policy enactment, and because it is a tool in which funnels policy decisions to a relatively select few. This is not suggesting that the decisions for 800,000 NY hunters are being made by ten people, but rather several hundred who are connected, not only to each other, but to various politicians and politically linked organizations. This is not however what this article is about and to understand that we direct you to the archives. We believe however, that we are in fact facing an issue which actually does in impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills, wish to impose a two year moratorium on the DEC’s management strategies and thereby likely require the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research, apparently because the conclusions of existing research do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Senator Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States. These proposals appear to have been modeled after a section of the Federal Endangered Species Act which requires an EIS or environmental impact statement in some situations. Although this federal law is sound in our opinion; the EIS as it functions in the Endangered Species Act, pertains to endangered species facing limited and/or declining range, not deleterious introduced species which are expanding their distribution, hence the term ‘invasive’. The wildlife science community at large, not just the DEC, considers mute swans to be a deleterious and invasive species based on its behavior and known impacts. The designation as an invasive species is not arrived at merely because of a species original range as is being suggested by persons opposed to the plan. As a matter of fact there are introduced species that are not necessarily invasive, however that is not the case with mute swans. This legislation also seems to be modeled after fairly recent hydrofracking moratoriums. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium proposal is much different, while ironically being very much the same… It is different because the two issues have a much different level of complexity and different levels of scientific consensus. Unlike hydrofracking, which has a history of issues in other states which have not been properly addressed, the published research about mute swans is definitive. There are two forms of research, basic and applied. Basic research is the source of knowledge regarding a specie’s biology, behavior, natural history and how it interacts with plants, animals, and people within a community. Basic research is not merely a source of the proverbial ‘fun facts’; it provides insight into a species population dynamics and how it functions in an ecological system. Applied research is problem orientated and is useful in developing management strategies like the ones outlined in the DEC’s mute swan plan. That statement needs to be qualified because it implies that basic research is never relevant to management strategies and that is not accurate. In other states the published basic research is the foundation for concern about mute swans and published applied research has been used in the development of their management strategies. The DEC’s opinion that mute swans are a harmful species in NY and the strategies within the DEC’s plan, are also guided by research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If one pays attention to the literature citations within the draft plan this would be apparent. We speculate the rebuttal to the above will be that state-specific or updated research is needed, but we challenge them to provide a valid reason as to why. In reality they are not interested in biological research; and will seek social research after a two year window of opportunity to make this a public opinion battle during which they can use their abundant resources to exert influence. That will effectively make this a politically-based policy instead of a science-based policy. The goals behind the strategies which comprise the DEC’s plan are to prevent the loss of breeding sites by native birds, protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) from over grazing, and remove one more source of water contamination. One of the strategies to achieve those goals is hunting. The plan is being mischaracterized by some of its detractors who claim it is motivated by a desire to expand hunting opportunities; however hunting is only one of the strategies within the plan. Before we continue: we are NOT criticizing environmentalism and we are NOT categorizing people who are opposed to invasive species eradication as environmentalists. We consider ourselves environmentalists. A four year moratorium was initially issued on Hydrofracking. When that expired few people knew what fracking was. Over those four years however, legitimate concerns developed because of a history of events in other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. The first moratorium expired and the industry was anxious to get started. They thought they were going to waltz right in and start making money. They even kept themselves busy over those four years engaging landowners and even entering contracts with them to start drilling away once the moratorium expired. They knew they had a Pro-fracking President and a Pro-fracking governor – yes Obama and Cuomo, the two best friends the industry could ever have. The majority of state representatives also supported fracking, many of them endorsed and/or financed by the industry. But anti frackers were now organized and had history, as well as science on their side. Articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, social media sites such as face book allowed them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The anti-fracking movement became a force against politicians and big energy. Anti-hunters are well versed in the use articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, and social media sites such as face book, which enable them to influence public opinion and recruit new members at an exponential rate. The HSUS is extremely well funded and it is very common for them to air infomercials on television laden with snappy, attractive propaganda to efficiently reach masses of people. So what is going to happen if the HSUS and their local affiliates in NY State succeed in passing this moratorium on swan eradication? For one thing in two years without intervention the mute swan population will grow 26 percent and their distribution throughout the state will expand as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive…. Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really… Will any additional research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science. Will further research discover the mute swan is an integral part of the ecological processes in the state? No, it will not. However, we are aware of one study which suggested mute swans enable the native waterfowl to access food, but have not reviewed the study. It sounds like pseudo-science, but we will report on this in the future. However, even if this is true, mute swans impact native waterfowl in many ways and native birds do not depend on a symbiotic relationship with mute swans during any part of their life cycle. In other words, native birds feed themselves just fine without mute swans and have been doing for eons before the swans were introduced to this continent; the only significant impacts mute swans have on native waterfowl are negative ones. What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow the population size and distribution of mute swans to increase, along with the associated impacts; is it will provide anti-hunters over two years to grandstand on this issue, organize, recruit new members, and influence politicians and public opinion. Since an overwhelming amount of research, as well as common sense, support mute swan eradication, it is doubtful anti-hunters will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion, politicians and thereby conservation policy by essentially blocking any science-based decisions which are not consistent with their ideologies.

Because those are my reasons not the anti hunters reasons... They are NOT environmentalists, they are animal rights activists. You are assuming those are the same. Not true. I fried up and ate a squirrel for breakfast, just now, but I don't like hunting contests, and I gave you my reasons - not theirs.... I also pulled my weight and then some fighting anti hunters over the years and right now. I got things to do, might even have to build a website because of the mute swan issues evolving so fast. No time to go in circles arguing simple concepts. Or listening to personal attacks. Not suppose to be a debate forum, but you cant express any opinion or even a fact, lol, unless it is consistent with what the majoritans think. As long as an opinion does not misrepresented facts or misalign perspective or endorse law breaking let sleeping dogs lay...

Note: The following article is of explanatory nature. We will follow up with information on how you should respond to this. The politicians and the antis are making this a soup of complexity, so it is important that you read this article thoroughly so that we can get everyone updated and one the same page. This is evolving tremendously fast and is putting a strain on our time, we need people to pitch in. At this point we are considering a website with a petition and/or form letter generator to keep up with all this BS. Also, we cant make these articles shorter, all we can do is break them up into part 1 to be continued, part 2, etc.. However it does not seem that would increase readership and would result in less people taking the time to understand what we are saying instead of engaging more people. Suggestions or opinions on that encouraged, not here though, PM please. February 23, 2014 We have been offering the unpopular premise that the practice of hunters uniting, no matter what the issue, is not wise; and in addition to potentially exasperating a bad public image and/or supporting unsound policies; should also be frowned upon because it is a tool in which funnels policy decisions to a relatively select few. This is not suggesting that the decisions for 800,000 NY hunters is being made by ten people, but rather several hundred who are connected, not only to each other, but to various politicians and politically linked organizations. This is not however what this article is about and to understand that we direct you to the archives. We are however, addressing an issue that does in fact impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills are requiring the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research which has already been done, because the conclusions do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. The proposals are not linked to the endangered species act requiring an EIS, a sound law in our opinion. However these proposals; which we deem not sound, copy this law to enable a socio-political agenda. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States. These bills, if passed, will impose a two year moratorium the DEC’s mute swan management plan. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium is much different, while ironically being very much the same… It is different because the two issues have a much different level of complexity and different levels of scientific consensus. Unlike hydrofracking, which involves a myriad of chain-reaction problems which are not addressed and have shown up in other states; the research pool for mute swans is adequate and practical application of the research has been developed, agreed upon, used successfully in other states, and produced the desired ecological end result: reclamation of breeding sites by native birds, recovery of submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, and improved water quality. A four year moratorium was initially issued on Hydrofracking. When that expired few people knew what fracking was. Over those four years however, legitimate concerns developed because of the recent history of other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. Before we continue: we are NOT criticizing environmentalism and we are NOT categorizing people who are opposed to invasive species eradication as environmentalists. We consider ourselves environmentalists. The first moratorium expired and the industry was anxious to get started. They thought they were going to waltz right in and start making money. They even kept themselves busy over those four years engaging landowners and even entering contracts with them to start drilling away once the moratorium expired. They knew they had a Pro-fracking President and a Pro-fracking governor – yes Obama and Cuomo, the two best friends the industry could ever have. The majority of state representatives also supported fracking, many of them endorsed and/or financed by the industry. But anti frackers were now organized and had history, as well as science on their side. Articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, social media sites such as face book allowed them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The anti-fracking movement became a force against politicians and big energy. Anti-hunters are well versed in the use articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, and social media sites such as face book, which enable them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The HSUS is extremely well funded and it is very common for them to air infomercials on television laden with snappy, attractive propaganda to efficiently reach masses of people. So what is going to happen if the HSUS and their local affiliates in NY State succeed in passing this moratorium on swan eradication? For one thing the mute swans population will have grown 26 percent and in addition to increasing their numbers will likely have increased their distribution throughout the state as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive…. Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really… Will any research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science. Will research discover the mute swan is an integral part of the ecological processes in the state? No, it will not. However, we are aware of one study which suggested mute swans enable the native waterfowl to access food, but have not reviewed the study. It sounds like pseudo-science, but we will report on this in the future. However, even if this is true, mute swans impact native waterfowl in many ways and native birds do not depend on a symbiotic relationship with mute swans during any part of their life cycle. In other words, native birds feed themselves just fine without mute swans and have been doing for eons before the swans were introduced to this continent; the only significant impacts mute swans have on native waterfowl are all negative. What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow population growth and distribution of mute swans to increases, along with the associated impacts; is it will allow anti-hunters to organize, recruit new members, and influence politicians and public opinion. Since an overwhelming amount of research, as well as common sense, support mute swan eradication, it is still doubtful the antis will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion and politicians, which will affect future policy decisions on matters less cut and dry, including the morality of hunting in general…

And since you were smart enough to pick a fight, I will give you some more food for thought... How many total words have you typed in your short posts about crossbows? How many months have you been at it? Have you arrived at a conclusion yet? So worry about your cumulative short posts, not my four paragraph posts... I know people who have repeated the same things over and over, for decades, without ever solving anything or ever making any sense. This is quite common in the world of hunting. The internet should be a means of breaking that cycle, not fueling it.

You cant even articulate why crossbows should not be allowed during the archery season. Try and reconcile a squirrel hunting contest... Lets hear it... Or is all you can do is criticize people? Lol...

Who is benefiting the most from all the advertising? Think some more about that one... Yes, anti hunters have a one - track mind, but it takes a one - track mind to fight them. These people get what they want because they make it happen... However, you do not promote hunting by trying to convince confirmed anti hunters, you promote it to policy makers and people with neutral opinions about hunting. Hunt contests are not a good way to befriend neutral persons and policy makers... It will, however, enable anti hunters to befriend those on the fence about hunting as well as those charged with policy decisions... In my opinion, this is not one of the battles everyone should enlist into. This is between the sportsman in Holley and the antis, not the entire sporting community. The Holley crowd is engaging in a controversial practice and using the sport of hunting and a public resource (squirrels) to raise money. If you are going to engage in those sort of controversial ventures it is your responsibility to defend them, not the entire sporting community, which as a whole does not benefit from it and in reality is compromised by it . There may be some good things which come from this hunt, but I doubt they overshadow the big picture or that there are not other, better ways, to achieve the same benefits. Sorry to those that believe in hunting contests, but I am not one of you. I remind hunters that there are other issues facing us right now that warrant more attention than this does. Time-sensitive issues at that... Long term Issues that negatively or positively effect many more people than this fundraiser does... And next year, when the Holley Fire Chief invites the controversy again with another hunt, there will also be better things to worry about then as well, as there was in 2013 and this year... And so on and so forth...

Here is the latest off the DEC's FB page: Judi Barth You environmental people are so full of BULL! Killing SWANS? Really you suck! How mean, and cruel. Liberal elites, think they know everything, and they know NOTHING! Disgraceful!!!!!!

The assembly sponsor: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fred-Thiele/46801992894

This dude use to be a broadcast journalist, now he is a NY assemblyman making laws,,, https://www.facebook.com/pages/Joseph-Saladino/112999658714726

Doesn't say he is the senator, but he seems to have a lot in common with Bill Clinton, Elliot the idiot Spitzer, JFK, and Arnold... https://www.facebook.com/steve.cymbrowitz?fref=ts

I saw it a few days ago, but I ignore anything with the word bounty in it.. If I noticed you posted it I would have checked it out though. Good job commenting and posting the auto response, good idea I like that. The antis are making this a public opinion battle! This new legislation means there is work to do. First of all, this newspaper article http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/news/36111-not-ready-for-a-swan-song.html I discovered was intentionally published so close to the comment deadline for anyone to rebut it. Two days before the comment deadline the readers 1) Got biased information 2) Were directed to public comment .immediately. Very cute indeed - lets retaliate and more importantly sway public opinion from the newspapers readership to our side. However it is still important we flood that newspaper with factual letters. They cannot be simple letters like in this post. They must be persuasive and point at the fallacies presented in the article. I am working on some letters and I will post them for everyone's use. We will be following up on this in a few days with form letters and/or talking points. Please be prepared to contact 3 lawmakers who are sponsoring this legislation, an additional one who indicates support of it, and the newspaper where this article appeared. Give your networks on social media or whatever the heads up as well. This certainly is a lot of work, but it is exactly what we outlined is needed to successfully establish a dove hunting season. We described it will be: write here, and then write there, go to this link for talking points, tell your networks, if you don't have a net work build one.... The participation we get on this mute swan battle is going to be a fair representation of the muscle we have to drive a dove season. So far, we look pretty weak...

I am going to post the face book pages of the lawmakers who are driving legislation to block the DEC's Plan. Here is the first one, the same guy who is after the squirrel competition in Holley, NY even though he is in NYC. Look at the comments section. https://www.facebook.com/avellaforsenate

Actually it may be done at 4:30... Or midnight... But realistically I think if they return to their office on Monday morning I am not sure they will sift through all the mail and emails and discard the ones that came in 'late', but then again, they might. Anybody know the exact policy regarding the deadline?

History has been made! Shadow Oak Bo has won the National Championship for the second straight year! The last dog to win back to back was Paladin (pointer) in 1951 & 1952. The last setter to win back to back was Sioux in 1901 & 1902. The impact of this win on field trialing, setters, bird dogs and all upland sports is immeasurable. His pups and service are really going to bring some big bucks now! If one of his offspring wins the national or is consistent in any of the other major stakes, watch out! Congratulations goes out to the owners Butch Houston & Dr. John Dorminy, handler Robin Gates and Scout Luke Eisenhart.

Last Push – Exercise the opportunity to participate in decisions about hunting policy and waterfowl management! Three Hours Left, but it will only take 2 minutes... Choose the letter that describes you and email it with “swan plan” in the subject line to: to [email protected] The DEC needs you to include your full name and physical address and specifically asks that you type “Swan Plan” in the subject line. Letter1. I have no vested interest in the management of mute swans however I trust the DEC in this matter and want to be counted as a person who does not have any emotional objection to the eradication of mute swans. Letter2. As a waterfowl hunter I have a vested interest in the eradication of mute swans due to their impact on native birds and water quality. I trust the DEC to make the correct decisions regarding the management of native pests and invasive species, including mute swans. Letter3. As a nature enthusiast I have a vested interest in the eradication of mute swans due to their impact on native birds and water quality. I trust the DEC to make the correct decisions regarding the management of native pests and invasive species, including mute swans.

Reality Check: In post number 2, FSW said there was a 99% chance the pictured deer had EHD. Potter confronts FSW and tells him that his assertion in post number 2 is wrong. Mike Rossi tells Potter it is not impossible for EHD to cause weight loss. And Mike Rossi also explained why it is not impossible. FSW suddenly projects the conversation to appear that it was Mike Rossi, rather than himself, who made the erroneous claim that emaciation is caused by EHD 99% of the time... FSW does the same exact thing again when someone posts a study about lateral transmission of CWD in lab mice. Then he claims, several times, that Mike Rossi has been "schooled". The deer in the photo was shot and a necropsy was done. The results of the necropsy indicated the deer did indeed have CWD.