mike rossi

Doc, Please allow me to get off topic and make a qualifying statement about this. What I say in this post is a different topic than Doc's query about the acceptability of the entertained hunting methods - so if anyone wants to explore it further, please start another topic, or else Doc will hate me even further for diverting his post.... What you said above that I bolded should be explained. This is another "draft" open for public comment. That public comment will guide the strategies within which actually do get adopted. I am not too keen on this particular issue, nor do I endorse all of it, however speaking generally about stakeholder input on draft plans , we need to not listen to those uninformed or rabble rousers who discourage participation. I also posted recently about the HSUS encouraging its NY member constituency to participate in this comment opportunity. The HSUS is the nation's largest anti-hunting organization. As with the set back proposal we discussed at length, some the hunting aspects of the bear plan can be traced back to a member organization of the NYS Conservation Council. The NYS Houndsman submitted a resolution to the NYSCC which was approved by vote. The Houndsman along with others, perhaps the council itself, have also been discussing these desires with both the DEC and state lawmakers for some time (years). If some magazine or newspaper publishes an article in the future which seems to imply that a certain politician is behind new legislation, recall this perspective and understand it is an endorsement of a DEC strategy which was originally proposed by so-called organized sportsman... Thank you...

See the post I just made about the antis flooding the DEC about the draft plans open for comment until feb 21. How many sportsmen will whine at the outcome later, but have not sent a letter or e mail? Have you, I did, in addition to Paul Revering this on this forum and elsewhere.... Then consider those who come up with these statements that the dec does what it wants, bla, bla, bla, insinuating participating in public comment is a waste of time.... It is personal responsibility and so is evaluating the source of your information. Questions about an article should be directed at the person who wrote the article, don't you think? Also, this draft bear plan also shows the same trail and sequence of events. If you go to the NYSCC website and view their resolutions, you will see that the desires of the NY State Hounsmen, a member organization of the NYCC, are clearly reflected in the DEC's draft bear management plan... Those desires were published as a resolution a long time ago - if an article comes out and implies xyz politician endorses it, do we have this discussion AGAIN rather than understand the difference between an endorsement of a policy and the creation of a policy? If the plan is approved the DEC will have its legislative affairs branch get with the politicians to craft legislation or amend current law. During the legislation phase both supporters and those opposed of the change will contact state lawmakers and the governor...

So who thinks: 1) Stake Holder Input during the public comment phase of management plans guides the outcome of the finally adopted plan? 2) The HSUS does not closely monitor New York legislation AND DEC plans? 3) The DEC is not getting flooded with public comment from the antis this week about the bear and swan management draft plans? Here is one of their e-mail blasts that went out to their members in New York: http://action.humanesociety.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=81881.0&dlv_id=82803

I noticed this too. I don't know if there is truth to the idea of "acquired taste" or not. The more game I eat, the less I like grocery meat. It by comparison is flavorless, boring, and it is store bought chicken, not herbivorous waterfowl, which I occasionally taste the fish-based commercial feed they are fed. I guess 500,000 NY deer hunters who eat venison may not enjoy the variety that 300,000 NY small game hunters do. The proportion of that 300,000 small game hunters who hunt waterfowl and webless migratory game birds such as mourning doves, rails, snipe, woodcock, and even crows cooked with care, enjoy an even more interesting menu... A lot of satisfaction is derived from providing your own meal, especially when you hunt strategically opposed to opportunistically. Plus you know, that although wildlife, like people and farm animals, do accumulate toxins from the environment; that the meat is free of hormones, antibiotics, unnatural foods and crowded conditions inherent with grocery bought meats, which react with the animal and are proven to produce serious disease in people who eat them; and by hunting you doing your part in decreasing your carbon footprint....

Or is it one of these? There are 3,066 environmental conservation bills currently pending, perhaps the readers of the source of this story should contact the author or editor and find out exactly what he was talking about... http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6357-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A8557-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S3741-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A6833-2013

All I can find that seem related to all this is the following: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6317-2013 The following two are NOT the same, they are companion bills in the senate & assembly: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A6428A-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S4419A-2013

???????????? You are confusing me... This is getting off topic, it will annoy others, and I already spoke my opinions on this. I will answer you on this and then quit it... Is this proposal even come to fruit as a bill, or is it an existing bill that's been in the suspense file, or is just all talk at this point? Any one got the bill number or will post it here? Listen: 1) The draft swan plan indicates the DEC will entertain the idea of creating an increased set back for mute swans. That would mean it would be greater than the regular 500 foot set back AND the waterfowl exception would not apply to mute swans. I expressed opposition to this in my public comment I sent them earlier this week. 2) Yes the waterfowl exception only applies when hunting over water and off course, not shooting in the direction of buildings. If you shoot a shotgun, even loaded with a light load of number 7 steel, toward a house 500 feet away you will hit that house. I think the way you capitalized the word "toward" might be misleading. To understand the maximum range of various shotgun loads consult Journnees's Formula, which can be found online. Maximum range, however, should not be confused with effective range. It is not ethical or wise to shoot at game more than 120 feet away with a shotgun... 3) My interpretation of the discharge laws, correct or not, and the way I follow them, is that my pellets are not to land anywhere within a 500 feet circumference of a building. On a same but different note, it is my understanding that if your pellets, bullet, or arrow falls onto or crosses private property, that it is considered trespassing under the law the same as if you physically crossed the property boundary.

I see what you are saying, assuming that isn't "for the purpose of hunting".... I still say the proposed change might specify hunting, and without looking at the bill how can we be sure. With the pending mute swan plan there was a possible action to consider forfeiting the waterfowl discharge law (zero feet), making a specific safety zone set back for mute swans - which I opposed in my public comment, by the way. The bill might say for hunting deer only, someone should post the bill. I want to revive what I said about who weighed in and when did they weigh in? Even if the discharge law covers target shooting and no special language is needed as you are suggesting, are the suburban target archers weighing in and supporting the bill? Or did they even weigh in during the public comment phase of the 5 year plan? I am asking these questions for reflection, I don't really expect an answer. Someone should post the bill though...

There is no vice in focusing on what really happened instead of dwelling on what did not... In response to your quote above; what you said is probably true, but not unheard of in the wonderful world of hunting. If it isn't retaliation against a particular politician, it is against an organization or an ideology. Numerous examples exist. Two which come to mind first are opposition by the so-called "organized sportsmen" to the quiet waters proposal and the finch land acquisition. The same game is played every time sporting organizations support or oppose any proposals which do not directly benefit or impact hunting and conservation to undermine certain politicians, organizations, or ideologies. Often the spite, hatred, partisan loyalty, and superstition run so deep; that sporting organizations will reject proposals which benefit the sporting community. Without a change in attitude as well as leadership this vicious cycle will persist and continue to compromise conservation policy. Regarding the comments made about target archery: Some of those suburban target archers might have weighed in on this at some point, either by survey or submitting public comment. or perhaps afterward - during the crafting of the legislative bill. I did not look at the bill. If the bill was designed to enable the relevant strategy of the 5 year plan, then who was the impetus for inserting language to include target practice? The DEC plan has nothing to do with target archery. Can someone post the bill?

Nearly everybody agrees on the "grand standing" and that this is not Cuomo's patent invention... However, nearly nobody is paying attention to how these things are processed, connecting the dots, and becoming aware of how to respond in the future. Even fewer are understanding that the stakeholder input for sportsmen is being delivered by a select few... And then blaming the DEC and/or politicians for the resulting policies... How many times and how many different ways must I state the same thing?

We already traced this to the initial mail surveys and provided a link to the 5 year plan. If that isn't enough, refer them the NY State Conservation Councils website link about their position statements and resolutions. They have been driving a set back reduction ( though it was 250 feet not 150 feet) for some time, perhaps before coumo was even elected. WNY and me are not denying the governor is "grand standing" on this issue. Was Senator Grisanti and others not grandstanding on his crossbow bill? The importance here is people are still focusing on that grandstanding and have not learned how the dec process works, how their minds are manipulated by partisian politics, and to pay attention to surveys and public comment opportunities. Its called growth, and many are not growing... Although WNYBH supports these setbacks, I oppose them, Yet we both understand the processes which leaded to this and are trying to explain it.

This might help... Diet Geese: Canada: Plant Snow: Plant Brant: eel grass plant in winter White Fronted ; mainly plant Emperor: mussels and other shellfish Swans: Trumpeter: plant Tundra: plant Mute: plant Ducks: A generalization can be made that ducks forage on animal-based foods during the reproductive season and during molt. Mallards: Mostly plant, but will consume animals Black: both plant and animal, known to frequent tidal areas more than other puddle ducks and often forage on mollusks and insects Gadwall: 98% plant diet in fall and winter American Widgeon: Eat mostly plants, however “are not a preferred table bird” Pintail: mostly plant, some animal, about the same diet as mallards Green Winged Teal: mostly plant some animal, considered one of the best table birds, despite only weighing an average of 11 ounces. Blue Winged Teal: excellent table bird, weighs 13 ounces, mostly plant, but eats more animal food than green winged teals. Shoveller: large bill adapted to skimming the water surface, they forage for small plant seeds and animals. Reputed to be a poor table bird, not only in flavor but in the texture of the meat. However, many hunters disagree and favor them as table birds. Wood Duck: mostly plant, especially during hunting season. Very good table bird Ruddy Duck: Mostly plant during hunting season, it is considered a diving duck. Redhead: diver, 90% plant diet Canvasback: 80% plant diet, diver, considered top table bird Ring necked; diver, 80% plant diet Scaup (lesser and greater) divers, diet is 50% plant and 50% animal. Mollusks make up most of the animal part of their diet. Common Goldeneye: diver, 75% of diet is animal based. Bufflehead: diver, 80% of diet is animal Long Tail: Considered a “sea duck”. 90% of its diet is animal-based. Scoters (common, surf, and white winged) considered sea ducks. 90% of diet is animal. Eiders: sea duck, eats animal based diet Mergansers: animal – based diet

Some other thoughts about this: It is not uncommon at all for sportsman to belong to several rod and gun clubs. This allows one person to vote multiple times on one issue. Rod & Gun Clubs do not perform education outreach. They simply conduct their vote on some monthly meeting on some Tuesday or Wednesday night.... A percentage of newcomers might not even explore the issue and just vote. Many don't ever consider exploring issues because of the accepted practice among hunters of sticking together. Novices or youth may look to club members for guidance and/or simply follow their lead like sheep.

Maybe this will help... It can be as simple or as complicated as you want to delve into it. I will first give you some quick, practical information. If you want to delve into the reasons, I will follow with somewhat technical information, in case you are interested. Swans and the goose family which includes brant are herbivores or plant eaters. Nearly all ducks are omnivores or eat both plant-based and animal-based diets. Within the omnivores the ratio of plant to animal in the diet varies by species. It is not true that all diving ducks eat mostly animal based diets. It varies among species. The shoveler, which may not fit in either category, does eat mostly invertebrates, and although considered to not be good eating, actually is a good tasting duck. Waterfowl bag limits are structured such that it is necessary to know how to identify ducks in order to comply with the law. Knowing how to identify ducks, along with knowledge of each species foraging habits allows you to selectively hunt for the birds more desirable for the table. Another factor can be the age of the bird itself. Waterfowl often live over 25 years. You can’t discern age in the field beyond one year or so, but you often can determine if the bird is “hatch year” or not . It actually is a little tricky with waterfowl compared to other birds because of their unique molting process. However, if you want to be a real stickler and really exaggerate things, you can cook up the birds likely to be hatch year and use the others to make jerky… You should derive from what I just said that the bad taste of waterfowl is an exaggeration. They are not “greasy” either. I don’t even know if the older birds are tougher or less desirable and have not noticed a difference myself. Furthermore: “crows do not taste like wild duck”… That statement was made by someone who never ate either and I heard it alluded to in this very forum… Swans, as well as geese (including brant which are geese); are almost obligatory plant eaters. I say almost because I am aware of a photograph of captive young snow geese devouring mosquitoes. On the other hand, most omnivorous birds, and most ducks are that, eat animal based diets during reproductive and molting life cycle stages, which occur outside of hunting seasons. In winter waterfowl tend to favor foods high in carbohydrates because energy demands are high. The canvasback for example, a diving duck which diet consists of only 20% animal-based food becomes almost 100% PLANT-BASED in the winter. Addressing the belief that seasonal changes in diet effect the taste of birds during hunting season... Diet certainly does vary during the hunting season; however, local foraging movements and seasonal migration patterns must track plant growth and phenology to maximize rates of nutrient intake from foliage. We are not talking about food availability due to drought, acorn failure, or similar events when waterfowl must find alternate food sources. That is different and obviously if such events occurs during hunting season birds will adapt their foraging behavior. On Long Island, because of the tide water, birds may eat different foods at different times of the day. This occurs in non-tidal water as well, but it is a fair guess that shifting tides might contribute to this behavior where tides occur. If birds are feeding on animals, they need to forage for food when their prey is active. Although it is very common for waterfowl to feed nocturnally, the relationship between the tides and time of day might add even another twist. Learning the foraging preferences of ducks, to identify them, and shooting selectively goes along way. I caution, however against old husbands tales. Geese and Northern Shoveler ducks for example are some of the best eating waterfowl, yet rumored to taste bad. Another example is a generalization that diving ducks taste bad; however, the canvasback is a diving duck and has been considered the best eating waterfowl since the days of market hunting. Besides knowing your ducks (which actually is required to comply with restricted bag limits), you can field dress a bird and not only examine what it is currently eating, but what it has been eating recently. What the bird has been eating for two weeks may have more a bearing on flavor than what it ate just before you shot it or yesterday. You can get a clue by examining its gizzard. The gizzard will adapt to changes in a bird's diet by increasing or decreasing in size. Waterfowl species that consistently feed on harder food items like mollusks and hard-cased seeds will have a larger gizzard than species that consistently forage on softer food items. But the gizzard also grows larger when individual birds shift to a diet rich in hard foods. Think of the gizzard as being like your bicep muscles. If you use them more, by lifting heavy weights for example, they will grow larger in size. Similarly, the muscular gizzard of waterfowl will grow with increased use caused by frequent consumption of foods that are hard to break down. After you clean enough ducks of a particular species, you will get an idea for the average gizzard size and will notice changes in size. This is not saying compare the gizzard of an eider or even a scaup with a mallard. It is saying that if the mallards you killed today have a noticeably larger gizzard than mallards you killed a few days ago it may be linked to feeding on animal – based foods…. However, it could also be linked to feeding on acorns or corn which being quite hard could enlarge the gizzard the same way shell fish does. Most ducks are indeed omnivores, however the proportion of animal-based foods to plant – based foods vary among species. If you learn about your ducks you can shoot selectively. Even though ducks will change their diet, they historically use the same migration routes and travel corridors which put them in habitat where their preferred foods are. For example, a mallard prefers plant based foods. They may become obligated to eat a diet which is more heavily composed of animal matter than they prefer due to an event such as mast failure or drought, etc., but their established travel routes and local ranges are chosen because in normal years the preferred food, not the alternate food, is abundant.

Are you taking into consideration the species of ducks you are taking upstate versus Long Island? I am not sure that it is true that ducks which eat primarily plants switch to a predominantly animal/fish diet and vice versa. Not even because of migration. There may be some exception to that, but right now I cant think of any duck that is such an exception. Geese are not known to forage fish or animals, although I am sure they would take fish-based commercial feed and if people are feeding them somewhere that may explain it.

Good for the info, but hunters on a show like the travel channel which most viewers don't hunt showing hunters talking about crapping and what not, not good... Also: sooner or later someone will hear a waterfowler say he "recycled" a duck... That does NOT mean he threw it out. In Waterfowler's lingo recycling is shooing and eating a bird... That is why you see some waterfowl apparel with the triangle recycling symbol...

The word of the week is mute swans. The DEC’s draft mute swan management plan open public comment period is coming to an end on February 21, 2014. We have made an exception for the mute swan issue and diverted from our single-issue mission on our face book page. Within the timeline/wall and the events section there is background information, links to the DEC’s plan, and talking points for your use to construct written public comment to mail or e mail into the DEC. We also emphasize that mute swan eradication is an important issue on its own face; however, our response to this issue is a surrogate of sorts for future response to a mourning dove management plan and/or a mourning dove bill. Not only does it test how effectively we can mobilize people, but gauges our level of resistance against anti - dove hunters because the opposition to mute swan management is the same crowd opposed to mourning dove hunting. Furthermore this opposition uses very similar propaganda strategies in its effort to hinder management and/or use of both species. As a matter of fact, yesterday a far reaching article by animal rights activists surfaced about the DEC’s draft plan. The animal rights article focused on the mute swan being the symbol of romance, much the same as they did with a nationwide propaganda campaign spanning 50 years claiming the mourning dove, a bird indigenous to north and South America is the dove of peace. The real dove of peace, the dove referenced in religious readings, is the ringed turtle dove which occurs in the Middle Eastern region, not the Americas. We also reviewed what is going on with the NYSCC and CFAB. CFAB, according to their documents, is developing a mourning dove management plan. We do not understand how this fits under their function, qualifications, nor what they intend to do with this plan, as they are not the DEC. On the NYSCC front, it is about the same. They listed as one of their position statements, the goal of creating a mourning dove season. However, their current list of active resolutions does not include any thing about mourning doves. To incorporate our organization and then join the NYSCC for voting privileges would not likely further our agenda of establishing a mourning dove hunting season in NY. It would force us to poll our constituency about any and all resolutions regardless of their merit; which essentially uses us to promote and publicize unsound proposals. Not only is that irresponsible it also diverts our time and resources, and the attention of our constituents away from our special interest mission and to the agendas of the same people who have not driven a mourning dove agenda for a half a century. (See “Notes” for further explanation) Notes: Why we do not incorporate and join the NYCC for voting privileges. The NYSCC, or “the council”, as they are known, has a membership which consists mainly of groups rather than individual members. A typical member would be a county sportsmen’s federation. Each “member” is entitled to submit “resolutions” in February of each year. After another meeting in April all the resolutions are mailed back to “members”. The “members” are in theory supposed to poll all of their constituent members and then report back to the council and cast votes on each resolution based on their internal election. Resolutions which are “passed” remain active for three years over which the council “pursues” them. There are numerous flaws with this system which has been in place in NY for some time and is also used in other states. We will discuss two of those flaws. First of all, unless individual members are following the resolutions, or in nepotistic situations, club officers can vote anyway they choose without polling their members on every resolution or ignore the vote tally. Second, this system allows legitimate resolutions to be used to “piggy-back” other resolutions, some which are not consistent with sound conservation. This is somewhat analogous with politicization of conservation and/or omnibus legislation. This questionable system has been cemented even further by the tenet that sportsman must stick together. The problem is still further compounded because it facilitates politicians themselves in three ways. First, it enables the two – party system to manipulate sportsmen and create rifts between them and non- shooting conservationists. Second, politicians serve ex-officio on citizen advisory boards and thirdly, politicians appoint the citizens who serve on these boards. These boards operate in collusion with the NYSCC and the outdoor writers association(s) and thereby a chain, with the various county federations. Reiteration: To incorporate our organization and then join the NYSCC for voting privileges would not likely further our agenda of establishing a mourning dove hunting season in NY. It would force us to poll our constituency about any and all resolutions regardless of their merit; which essentially uses us to promote and publicize unsound proposals. Not only is that irresponsible it also diverts our time and resources, and the attention of our constituents away from our special interest mission and to the agendas of the same people who have not driven a mourning dove agenda for a half a century.

Check out these links: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/J824-2013 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/search/?term=lawsection%3A%22Resolutions%2C+Legislative%22

Now back to your little story that you say it is ok to feed cervids outside of harsh areas like Tug Hill... Did you even think about where this elk was located? It was Bradford County , Pennsylvania, which is much less harsh than Lewis County, NY. And an bull elk is about the size of a horse - therefore probably much hardier in deep snow and cold than a whitetail. The habitat in Bradford county also has much more natural food and even farmland than the tug hill region. So why did this elk starve if feeding is ok outside of tug hill? The following is from Pennsylvania Game Commission: A trophy bull elk was found dead earlier this month on Pennsylvania’s elk range, the apparent victim of winter wildlife feeding, which is illegal for elk. Test ...results returned last week cited rumen acidosis as causing the death of the 6- by 7-point bull. The disorder is linked to supplemental feeding by humans. Rumen acidosis is brought on by the sudden introduction of carbohydrates, usually grain and often corn, to an animal’s diet. An elk’s diet is made up mostly of grasses and other soft vegetation. When the bull suddenly overloaded on corn, its body produced too much lactic acid in an attempt to digest this new food, causing its death.

Tamguney is the researcher referred to in the court transcript you posted. The link below contains a list of Tamguney's publication record. This record indicates that the date of his last published research was 2009. The research I referred to was July 2011. Tamguney does have some research in progress about the horizontal transmission of prion diseases. Show me the paper where Tamguney indicates feeding deer is not a factor in CWD transmission.... http://prusinerlab.ucsf.edu/pdfs/CV_ErdemTamguney.pdf

, Oh thanks, you telling me when I am on and off track is a real honor... Did you miss this part of what I posted above about two years? Here it is (again), below in italics and underlined.... Detection of subclinical infection in deer orally exposed to urine and feces (1) suggests that a prolonged subclinical state can exist such that observation periods in excess of two years may be needed to detect CWD infection, Did ya read the part that said two years? I suspect these findings were established after the court hearing you posted. If they were not published after the court hearing, somebody wasn't keeping themselves updated, which I seriously doubt is the case. If you had the grasp you think you do, you would have never posted a court decision or proceeding to support your position in the first place... You are quite the character. Doc worded this post as if he had a question. I answered the post under that context. He got my answer, your answer, and the answers of others. Don't go on with this crap telling me to tell the class and all that.

Up near Fort Drum some starvation toward very late winter and spring goes with the territory... But in other less harsh regions thee cause of starvation is the practice of feeding...

They are right, this got off topic, I said that myself a few posts back... But I get your point.

That sounds like this brings NY up to speed with the majority of states. I think that is a far cry from claims that providers will be legally obligated to report patients with mental health conditions or who have been prescribed certain medications. Here are three questions which explore that claim: 1) Without knowledge of a patients access to firearms or if the patient denies he has access to firearms; and the provider of a patient within that medical paradigm does not feel that a patient is a threat to himself or others, is the provider obligated under the safe act to inform the authorities? 2) If the provider of a patient within that medical paradigm is aware or suspects a patient has access to firearms; but does not feel that he is a threat to himself or others, is the provider obligated under the safe act to inform the authorities? 3) Or is the state police going to maintain a database of everybody within that medical paradigm and cross reference it at the point of every ammunition or firearm sale?

So then, this isn't entirely novel and apparently states have the authority to do this under HIPAA. or is the upgrade from permissive to mandatory novel?