mike rossi

Nice job on here by everyone keeping it civil and not overworking the moderators!

I would call the park headquarters AND the regional DEC office. I wouldn't discuss your incident, just ask what type of hunting is allowed and also be sure to ask if there are any special regulations for the property which are more restrictive than state law. Take a look at the link pasted below - pretty vague, but personally, I always assume hunting is not a priority public use of "parks" as it is with Pitman Robertson Lands... I still caution you however, that even some PR Lands and duck stamp lands, especially downstate, don't allow hunting or have special regulations which extend beyond state law. Don't get discouraged, it sounds like you made an honest mistake and in your defense the info on both the parks website and the DEC's website are vague. However, it is inherent to the sport of hunting to investigate and fully understand all the laws governing the sport, even the obscure ones that are either vague or not widely known.... Its just part of the sport of hunting, (not the ticket - lol), but the responsibility of awareness... http://nysparks.com/parks/152/amenities-activities.aspx

Hello Doc, Correct I don't have much interest in this, I did just read it and I will make some comments here. Since the draft is in adobe form, it has a search box. I typed in: fawn, deer, predation. Nothing in the document discussed predation of fawns or adult deer or any other animals. I rest this right here that the black bears impact on deer is not a concern of the DEC as per the draft. if I missed something in the draft, please show me... Off course, if anyone thinks the DEC should evaluate the impact of bears on deer, that is what the public comment phase is for, and it is your opportunity to suggest that or make other suggestions... The plan breaks the state into four divisions. The recommendations only call for quote: a "modest" population reduction in one of the 4 areas. Two other geographic divisions are to maintain the current populations at the status quo... A fourth division, which is a little confusing because rather than being a contiguous geographic area, it represents the lake plains, the Mohawk valley, and " urban/suburban areas". In this division the DEC wants to prevent bears from immigrating and establishing populations. None the less, the DEC does want to expand bear hunting to achieve those modest population reduction goals. As we been discussing that includes relaxing regs on cubs, baiting, hounds, trapping (likely foot snares), a spring season and tweaking the northern zone season which may displease archers, by the way... Let me point out some trivia for those who might be interested: Page 4 , on the bottom there is a footnote regarding Grant WE-178-G. That means this draft was funded by Pitman Robertson Funds, 3:1 with state money, most likely from the conservation fund. Objective 2; strategy 2.2.2, The plan does in fact call for a hunter survey. This will be another one of those 5,000 hunter surveys, likely done by Cornell (human dimension unit) or responsive management. Those surveys almost surely will receive Pitman Robertson funding as well.

Here is their face book page: https://www.facebook.com/WildlifeConservationStamp

That comment just switched the topic from bear management to deer management... One of these days (before feb.21 when they take the draft off the website) I will read it (the draft)- But in the meantime does the draft reference reducing bear populations to increase fawn recruitment? E Russell may have some personal concerns and observations, but I see the nationwide trend in deer management is toward lower densities to promote biodiversity. The strategy for maintaining hunter satisfaction under smaller deer numbers appears to be the so called quality or trophy animal. A natural predator would be an asset in reducing populations and manipulating age structures for trophies... I read a few lines of the draft which indicate the state has some desire to limit bear numbers in some form or fashion, but is fawn recruitment one of those forms or fashions? I kind of doubt it... Paste it on here, prove me wrong again... Rather be wrong than have to read it myself...

I don't think it was an argument, but I think he got pissed at me. I never disputed that this was a movement, I questioned as to if this was enacted, because the tone of his writing suggested that it was or was pending. In reality, several organizations, mostly Audubon chapters, and individuals are petitioning congress and/or the US Fish and Wildlife Service to create this stamp. "Petitioning" sounds official, but as far as I know they are writing their federal representatives in the US Senate and Congress, the USFWS, and they have a face book page along with the website - not much different than we are doing at the state level regarding a mourning dove season, although they have the backing of over a dozen conservation organizations and almost 8,000 face book subscribers.... I think eventually they might get this stamp created, however the hang up is that their already is a stamp in place and their goal of merely distancing themselves from hunters or even undermining the existing program to further their political agendas does not fit in with conservation or the USFWS. If they come up with some legitimate reasons for this stamp, show how it adds to conservation rather than subtracts, or shows some real benefit, congress and the USFWS certainly wont turn down money. Congress even rejected proposals to apply Pitman Robertson excise taxes to items such as binoculars, bird seed, and bird manuals. You may not be aware of it, but the money spent on those items actually dwarfs what hunters spend annually. I think congress and the USFWS are looking are aware of the impact politics have on conservation, particularly when dealing with thee most successful funding strategy that has ever been created. That may not be what congress and the FWS are thinking, but it is what I am thinking. So I really don't trivialize greybeard's concern. I have been outspoken about the promotion of the use of conservation lands at both the state and federal level for some time. I have also cautioned hunters in Maryland from imposing a fee for people without a hunting license to enter their state wildlife management areas (wmas). I wrote about how the volunteer base, which is worth tens of million dollars annually is no longer dominated by hunters. I described how non shooting conservationists now days outspend hunters and are more knowledgeable about conservation. I posted a video on this forum about a college with a large wildlife program has so much concern about the demographic trend in the student body, not just at their university, but through out the US, that part of their curriculum now includes a waterfowl hunting trip. How many hunters do you think have paid any attention to these things? And what are the stupid arse things they do obsess with? I want really arguing with greybeard, I was asking for clarification and putting the aspect I was aware of in its proper perspective... This leads me into talking about refuges. Around Long Island and neighboring Connecticut and Mass. there are like 10 or so National Wildlife Refuges. Other than deer population hunts, I believe , but am not sure, that those are closed to hunting. However, despite the discussion on here about no access for waterfowl on LI, there is both tremendous access and tremendous bird numbers. The season dates are set excellent and NY hunters enjoy no firearm discharge setback under state law when hunting waterfowl over water. Even though those refuges are closed to hunting - they are a major factor in producing local birds and the staging of migrant birds. Closing some refuges actually creates more hunting opportunity not less... Despite having such a vested interest in these refuges, hunters are ignoring them. They are not participating in policy decisions nor or they volunteering on them. If a news release hits that a controlled deer hunt is being considered on a particular refuge, then hunters perk up, putting it mildly. But anything else they don't even notice. keep in mind, despite the majority of this board, LI has a lot of waterfowl hunters and dozens of waterfowl organizations. Despite that, there is still only a few getting involved or who know what goes on. I think that has always been the case, however in modern times we face a different political climate and numbers of people who do not hunt that are interested in wildlife and conservation. At least in the old days, inactive hunters would have some knowledge and support conservation. Today less active hunters do not have a clue, are proactive in issues not supported by the public majority, and many are quite piggish. Someone can get interviewed by the news and claim to be a conservationist and then make a statement like the only good coyote is a dead coyote or similar crap... I would rather have that so-called sportsman not on my team... The future looks interesting to say the least...

This is a "quality of life" issue, not just a safety issue. Many people, myself included, don't want anyone that close to our house or buildings, no matter what they are doing. People in suburbia may be accustomed to people that close,but they are not used to people hunting, carrying weapons, and dead or dying animals or their blood & entrails. Most people understand this. I also am concerned this could damage the already tainted image of hunters and hunting. Never the less, I personally don't feel strongly enough about this issue to contact my state representatives about it - if and when this proposal becomes a bill. As far as the law addressing the direction you shoot in addition to discharge setback, there are indeed laws that address shooting toward a building. And you are warned about "beyond your target" in hunter education. I don't think anybody is suggesting that reckless endangerment and indiscriminate discharge of a weapon needs to be outlined in the regulation handbook, but if you think about it, it almost sounds that way.

Someone mentioned a movement to create a "non hunters stamp" a month or so ago. I found this: http://wildlifeconservationstamp.org/

The chase is longer (often miles) and the shooting aspect differs in that plucking a bear out of a tree contrasts with using a smoothbore for a bunny bouncing through cover or watching the cover intensely and waiting patiently for a bunny to pause to take a shot with .22 rimfire . Hound hunting for bears is sporting and requires a lot of dedication to train a pack of hounds and follow them to a captured bear. But there is little denial that the actual shooting is very easy. I am not taking sides here, just answering your question.

New Jersey, as well as most states, do not have the same discharge law. They have a safety zone law. Don't confuse this with trespassing as it applies in NY, but, your load or arrow cannot enter the safety zone perimeter designated by law. In Pennsylvania, you cant even drive game without a gun or bow within a safety zone. So those , including senators who continually reference other states need to do some homework...

There are at least 3 other laws which address that, including trespassing law. There are laws that prohibit "indiscriminate shooting" and "reckless endangerment". Trespassing applies because your arrow, pellets, or bullet entering private land is the same as you walking on private land. Off course if you are casting an arrow or firing a gun toward a building at the set back distances (existing or proposed) you have more to worry about than trespassing...

Maybe if Cuomo attends the inaugural banquet if/when a NY chapter forms this thread will get 9,000 views and 500 replies....

Ruffed Grouse Society 451 McCormick Rd Coraopolis PA 15108 (412) 262-4044 www.ruffedgrousesociety.org February 13, 2014 For Immediate Release Ruffed Grouse Society Expands Forest Habitat Effort with Creation of the American Woodcock Society Coraopolis, PA - The Ruffed Grouse Society (RGS) is proud to announce the creation of the American Woodcock Society (AWS), a branch of RGS initiated to expand forest habitat efforts and upland hunting opportunities to new landscapes across the nation. “The formation of the American Woodcock Society is a landmark event for forest conservation in the United States. The Ruffed Grouse Society has been the leader in woodcock conservation for decades. The creation of AWS expands existing efforts while advancing habitat creation and membership reach to additional regions that may not have ruffed grouse populations,” said RGS/AWS President and CEO John Eichinger. While grouse and woodcock share similar habitats, they don’t coexist across all landscapes, and AWS advances forest management and mission outreach to states that may not have grouse populations, especially in the southern United States where the majority of woodcock spend the winter months. Enhancing habitat in these regions also benefits many songbirds and other wildlife that rely upon young forest habitats. In addition, these regions continue to have a strong bird-hunting culture, and the habitat created by RGS/AWS will strengthen and expand these sporting traditions. “The goal of our organization is, and always has been, to preserve our sporting traditions by creating healthy forests for grouse, woodcock and other forest wildlife. At this crucial time in forest management from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, the AWS allows us to positively affect our nation’s forests and to spread awareness of our mission to a significantly larger group of supporters. The bottom line is that RGS and AWS will be able to collectively benefit more members, officials, conservationists and hunters who are passionate about the birds we love,” Eichinger concluded. The AWS will begin operations immediately, and anyone interested in AWS habitat efforts, chapters or membership can contact RGS/AWS at (412) 262-4044 or [email protected]. ***The Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society are North America’s foremost conservation organizations dedicated to preserving our sporting traditions by creating healthy forest habitat for ruffed grouse, American woodcock and other wildlife. RGS and AWS work with landowners and government agencies to develop critical habitat utilizing scientific management practices. Information on RGS/AWS, our mission, management projects and membership can be found on the web at: www.ruffedgrousesociety.org .

I am not suggesting the DEC should neglect any management plan or recovery plan, whether it is black bears or karner blue butterflies... However, I find it interesting that the DEC is willing to tackle some extremely controversial issues when it comes to this very ambitious black bear management plan.

I see that on page 17, on the top the DEC says: "bait, hounds, trapping, and spring hunts could provide additional management tools and generate interest in bear hunting... These are currently not lawful in NY, but are used successfully elsewhere and should be assessed for management value in NY". And as you indicate, these harvest methods are all under evaluation. That likely means the comments on this draft will weigh in, but it is also likely they will do another one of their 5,000 hunter surveys in the future. It also means that if they do decide to implement any of them, it may again go to the lawmakers. Not to beat a dead horse, but at that point politicians may again "grand stand" on any proposals they sponsor or otherwise support. However, knowing what we know now, we can trace it back to this draft, lol... And, if we search into the archives of the NYSCC resolutions, both passed and rejected, we probably can go back even farther...

Doc, I am not positive because I did not read the draft yet, but I suspect that the trapping referred to by the HSUS on their form letter is an embellishment of the DEC's own trapping effort to relocate and/or study bears, rather than a trapping season for sportsmen. The traps used are not footholds or snares, but contraptions more similar to huge box/cage traps. Embellishment is a known tactic of the HSUS. Somebody should read the plan so trapping is addressed in the correct context. Interestingly, if we read a HSUS document and don't catch a mischaracterization, and fail to refer to the actual DEC document for verification, what are the chances the public at large or some suit in Albany will? Don't get offended by this, I almost did the same thing while "sleep reading"...

Here in New York, the DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) has asked for public comment about their draft mute swan management plan. In this draft plan is the NYS DEC's strategies for controlling this invasive species. In NY, mute swan numbers are at an all time high- the DEC estimates around 2,200 free ranging mute swans. As you probably already know mute swans monopolize and defend huge breeding territories -entire ponds and small marshes - thereby displacing breeding pairs of native waterfowl. Mute swans actively pursue, harass and kill native waterfowl by drowning them. Mute swans also destroy vast quantities of SAV (submerged aquatic vegetation), and are known to attack people and animals. Please share this important waterfowling issue with your Facebook page and please provide this easy to follow step by step account of how and where to find the plan and make comment: *Review the DEC’s draft mute swan management plan at the following link, pay particular attention to the strategies. Link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/muteswanmgmtpln2013.pdf *Refer to the timeline and events section of NY Dove Hunting Facebook page for talking points you can use or combine with your own to compose a written public comment : https://www.facebook.com/events/250661385109562/?ref=5. *Email your comments before the deadline of February 21 to [email protected] with the subject “Swan Plan” *Share this post with your friends and groups. *Go back to NY Dove Hunting page and “Like” the page.

Local laws can be more restrictive than state law, but not less restrictive. An unreasonable set back may back fire and encourage municipalities to increase their set back even more than 500 feet. Vestal, and from what is said above, Ithaca have already done this. It seems this could set unwanted precedents through out the state and has the potential to create a controversy capable of evolving into a well organized political agenda.

I exaggerated, I admit it. But some truth holds...

You can already run bears in NY with hounds, you just cant kill them. The sporting quality ends when the bear is bayed or treed. This is good enough IMO. http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/25006.html

And don't forget this one either: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7076.html

Do they realize how many anti-hunters in NY received the following e-mail blast last night? https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Advocacy;jsessionid=833AFEC7388C3C5F6ED922CFBB86862F.app338b?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=6395&autologin=true&s_src=em_ha021114#.UvubFeeA3IU

Dude, The eastern wood rat also called the Allegany wood rat, are an endangered species... Seriously..

NY does have a chase season for bears by the way. You can pursue bears with hounds during a designated season during the summer, but you are not allowed to kill them. Its in the regs, look it up. Its been in effect for many years actually.

Not here, its out of the scope, I will send you a PM.