mike rossi

I don't really know what you are talking about - the 5 year deer management plan was quite transparent AND Cuomo and Obama were from the start, very much Pro hydrofracking, as was most of the legislature. Several references where made in this thread about the public comment and hunter survey - certainly no closed doors... The safe act was legislation. That is not the same as a DEC Plan. This is slightly confusing because the DEC can adopt a plan but often needs legislative approval to implement part or all of it ,and such is the case with the 5 year deer plan we are discussing. Before the DEC adopts a (draft) plan there is a public comment phase which is advertised under procedural guidelines as to where, when, and how long it is advertised. I am not sure if the advertisement regime is governed by law but I think it may be. If you don't think the publicity regime is far reaching enough, talk to your state reps and ask them to sponsor a bill to make it adequate...

This is not the first time an element of a DEC plan required the legislature to move forward. Although the public, both hunters and non hunters, typically say the outreach has not connected with enough people, it is a good guess that lawmakers and the governor look at the public opinion data collected by the DEC when they decide whether or not they will sponsor the needed legislation.

Stake holder input it is not only about a show of hands, it is to gather opinions, ideas, or point out deficiencies in the plan. The agency usually is aware of the controversial aspects of its plan, but stakeholder input can gauge the level of opposition and initiate the development of alternate options to reconcile differences in public opinion. On the other hand there may be occasions when an agency will not incorporate any stakeholder input it receives for very legitimate reasons. However, agencies will often adopt suggestions which enhance the plan and/or seem to represent the desires of the people - if they can accommodate those desires without compromising the objectives of the plan.

Ever here of hydrofracking in New York? There is one example... There was a moratorium issued twice, including one issued a few months ago after and because of public comment. Answer:Yeah, it happens all the time. No closed doors, the law requires "transparency".

You cited the "hunter survey" AND "a series of 20 statewide meetings that drew over 1,000 participants". Your implication is therefore pertinent to how those 20 statewide meetings were announced or how effective those announcements are. I don't know the level of effective reach of this strategy, you need to ask the DEC's big game team. I will comment however, that the number of participants is more or less out of the control of the DEC, if people are not interested, they just are not interested. The number of "participants" at the 20 meetings doesn't necessarily indicate the volume of public comment received. Some, probably most, comment is received via e mail and postal mail and many people that show up at meetings listen but do not submit comment. Nothing cited, other than the hunter survey, indicates the proportion of participants which are either hunters or non hunters either. You are actually citing statements that do not support your point, you need to get with the Big Game Team and get them to clarify that.

You are mischaracterizing my statement. Rephrased: A "hunter survey" is a survey of hunters. A "hunter survey" is not meant to poll non hunters. What are you saying I am admitting to? I cant admit to anything like that - as I said: I do not know what outreach, or if any outreach, was made to the non hunting public at large. I can suggest two ways for you to look into this however, One way is to ask the DEC Big Game Team. Another way is to look up the public comment for the draft. If the DEC removed it from their website, you can file a F.O.I.L. request and get a copy. As you alluded, the majority of comment is likely to be from hunters, but the level of non hunter participation seems to be of interest to you. I get your point, that you think the public input outreach did not facilitate participation by stake holders who do not hunt and reside in suburban deer overpopulation hot-beds. I get your point, and I think others do as well. I don't know why you are trying to over shadow the bigger picture to emphasize that point. If the public majority eventually finds this unpalatable, they will speak up and quickly be aided and abetted by local police, state police, local governments, and animal rights organizations.

Doc, Who are you claiming said this survey represents the public majority? The hunter survey was just that - a survey of hunters. It was not structured as a query of the public at large, but of hunters. The conclusions extrapolated from 5,000 hunters is by theory to represent 500,000 deer hunters, not the entire population of NY. The survey was not just one question or a series of questions about an archery shooting set back, the scope was broader and all the questions would have not been of interest or understood by the public at large. Furthermore, If I remember correctly, it is you who doesn't even believe a sample can represent the whole and are generally quite antagonistic toward statistics. As I said, anti hunters have long raised the issue that they and the non hunting public majority, are under represented in policy decisions by state wildlife agencies, i.e. the NY DEC. I do not know what outreach, if any, the DEC made to the public at large or to the public residing in deer nuisance "hotspots". I have already stated that I agree 50 yard set backs may be harmful to the image of hunting and breed a number of issues. I think most of us acknowledge the level of wisdom in this strategy, although some of us agree with a 50 yard set back. We can hash this back and forth to no end as usual... The thread started off with a misleading title. At post 148 I thought we said Amen. Someone then posts, what we all know, that politician's thrive on the vote. We all know that, but it has been focused on so narrowly that without intervention this thread likely would have fizzled out with readers none the wiser. The old husband's tales of the sporting community are generations old, until that cycle is broken we will continue to be under the mind-control of politicians ( mostly conservatives and republicans by the way), and those they appoint to represent the sporting community and manage conservation funds, as well the outdoor writers and commercial interests of businesses associated with hunting. People who have read this thread carefully gained a good perspective on the policy making process and how they can be involved in it. They also may have learned to evaluate sportsmen chatter more cautiously. I think the thread should end on that note, not start up again that politicians thrive on the vote. Nobody is taking anything away with that they didn't already have AND it changes the perspective of what really played out...

Perception: Governor Cuomo proposed legislation the sporting community would like, in an attempt to earn forgiveness for the Safe Act while also earning votes for future elections. Reality: The DEC adopted a plan which includes a strategy which requires a legislative change. The DEC’s branch of Legislative Affairs subsequently began outreach to the governor and members of the legislature which is the reason for the set-back legislation.

Doc, The surveys, as we beat to death already, are of a sample of people, which in theory represent the majority. The interpretation of those surveys, along with other things, are used in the development of a draft. The draft is then opened for public comment. With this particular policy matter, the public has an additional opportunity to influence the set back strategy of the plan, because it requires a legislative change. Those who oppose or support can contact their state reps and the governor's office and voice their opinion. The "Sportsman's Perspective" is indeed "unique". They look at things two ways. First, does it benefit me? Second, there must be a political motive! If half of the time invested in broadcasting the theories about Cuomo's or other democrats disingenuous motivations was instead used to become informed and engaged, the perspective would change. Look at this thread; from the title it was off to a misleading start. If it continued on that course how many would have locked focus there, and not thought about the entire process that lead up to this, and, be none the wiser the next time around? Look at the Perspective image I posted. There are three kinds of people. The optimist sees the glass half full. The pessimist sees the glass half empty. The realist, however, sees the glass as it actually is... Anti hunters have complained for many years that they and/or the non hunting public majority are under-represented in decisions regarding wildlife and land. They have even accused state wildlife agencies such as the DEC with being in "collusion" with hunters. "Collusion" is expressively prohibited by law relating to how state wildlife agencies represent the public or specific groups. In a sense, what you saying regarding the outreach to sportsmen and not the public at large resonates with that mantle. I don't have an opinion about that, other than I do know the anti hunting network keeps updated on the issues it wants to track, such as mourning doves and mute swans. I do agree with you that the non hunting public at large , which is not necessarily anti hunting, might prefer deer browsing their gardens over bow hunters in their back yards.

800,000 people save one dollar each and the conservation fund losses $800,000 annually. In ten years each hunter saves ten dollars and the fund losses 8 MILLION DOLLARS! I am about sick of repeating myself about the idiots running the show... And I don't mean Albany or Washington... And I don't mean the DEC either... Guess again...

I don't know, but I cant see how this would not have complicated the DEC's ability to survey trappers. But then again, the big guys say this all simplifies things, what do I know...

The NTA (NY Trappers Association) were able to influence the final product of this proposal and get their concerns addressed... http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/89592.html http://www.dec.ny.gov/about/90432.html

Hold on a second Doc, The public comment period is an opportunity to get the DEC to make modifications to the draft. As I implied in this discussion, the set back strategy likely may have been an idea of the sporting community in the first place. Maybe not, but it is even more likely that the sporting community did support it during the public comment period. What YOU are implying is that public comment is just a game - follow the current mute swan plan and see how much the antis change the draft if others don't chime in, I hope that doesn't happen, but I think that would make a believer out of you. Those who cant attend meetings can submit written comment, the locations of the meetings are no excuse. Even when you participate in person you (should )still leave a written copy of your comments anyway, so why not just e mail them in anyway? Since the DEC needs a legislative change to implement the set back aspect of the plan, and that has not happened yet, you are correct, the legislature and governor can still be lobbied at this point. That is tier three however. Although not everyone received a survey, everybody had opportunity to participate in the stakeholder input, and although public comment is over and the plan has been adopted, legislative approval is still needed regarding the set back aspect and there still is an opportunityy to write their state reps and the governor - whether the oppose or support this measure. The next thing is people say they did not know what was going on, well it is a personal responsibility to keep yourself informed. Some people depend on their club or organization for news and updates, whether that is a wise approach or not I will not comment. I tried to bring this thing full circle, away from the notion that it was some political scheme to its proper perspective starting from the surveying sportsman to public comment on a draft plan to legislative action sought by the DEC to implement one of the strategies in the approved plan. We are running in circles to no end however. Think perspective...

This legislative proposal arose from the 5 year deer management plan adopted by the DEC. Before this plan was adopted, it was a little baby called "draft"; during the adoption process there were opportunities to participate in the public comment phase. Before baby draft was born it was conceived by the responses to surveys by those hunters who bothered to complete and return them... Did those of you who are opposed to the set back strategy bother to participate during the public comment phase? Did anyone who received a survey blow it off rather than complete and return it? Now baby draft is all grown up and is now a plan. The DEC will pursue a legislative change to ECL regarding bow hunting set backs and that legislation will be supported again by some number of sportsmen. Here is something I stumbled on that will interest some of you, its a page off the DEC's website so don't worry about clicking on it: http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/77233.html

Well the DEC adopted the set back change - perhaps reluctantly, perhaps enthusiastically. But overall the DEC is better equipped to make en-con decisions than the legislature. I posted a you tube video on here earlier last year of a hearing of the en-con committee, I don't recall if it was the senate or the assembly. As they voted on a muzzleloader issue, one committee member spoke up and said excuse me "what is a muzzle loader". The other lawmakers simply gestured like they were loading a smoke pole. He said 'Oh, OK and then, I assume, voted. Keep in mind that was a vote among the en-con committee. Do you think the general floor vote is better informed than the committee about hunting, firearm, and conservation issues?

If I understand it correctly, I like it, but it wont earn my vote. I am still interested in the origin of the set back strategy and whether or not political pressure had a role in its adoption into the 5 year deer management plan....

Are you saying that Cuomo's proposal differs in that it includes language that gives the DEC, instead of the legislature, the authority to set the regulations regarding set backs? That could pave the way for the DEC to be authorized to set additional en con laws. Not a fan of the set back idea, but in the greater scheme of things I change my mind, I would probably support it with that stipulation.

One of these days I need to figure out the relationship between the budget and the legislative process. Don't tell me that means some budget committee decides if a given bill is worthy of the money it costs to move it forward for vote?

Title doesn't say the governor is merely in support of a bill, it says he proposed it. Maybe this time around it is his proposal or his proposal is slightly different than another one ??? If we move away from semantics, it doesn't really matter because this bill is related to one of the DEC's strategies in its deer management plan. As you just explained a legislative affairs branch exists within the DEC. That branch undoubtedly discussed this with the governor and the lawmakers to get them to craft and/or support a bill which will allow them (DEC) to implement the set back reduction. The info you provided about the legislative affairs division of the DEC, considered along with the strategies outlined in the management plan, allows us to assume with some degree of certainty the DEC had a role in driving this legislation. Sportsman, organizations, and others may have also lobbied state lawmakers and the governor as well. Since we know that now, lets shift this discussion away from the legislation and focus on the 5 year deer management plan: Who recommended this strategy as part of the 5 year deer management plan? Was it DEC deer management team? Or was this strategy, although adopted by the DEC, actually the recommendations of organizations or the public? We should examine that answer to determine if this strategy was adopted by the DEC largely because of political pressure. We all don't agree on the lack of wisdom in this strategy, but many of us will agree that the DEC should not be coerced. I have to admit, even though I am fully aware that other states have adopted reduced setbacks to control suburban deer; and that I am also aware that state wildlife agencies interact and share ideas; I am so personally biased against this move I cannot help thinking wildlife professionals would not choose this without political pressure.

That is excellent information, thank you!

True but we don't always have history as a tool to evaluate risk. In your opinion is a 50 yard setback a high, moderate or low risk? Then factor in what is at stake even in low risk "gambles". You might bet a dollar with bad odds but even with really good odds would you bet the farm? Some people would, I am not one of those people...

Two people replied here stating the laws of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lets talk about that... No problems someone says? Just a few weeks ago a deer running around a subdivision with an arrow stuck in its jaw made national headlines.... Crossbow advocates were blaming it on "traditional equipment", who are they calling "wedge drivers"? Both of those states prohibit Sunday hunting and sportsmen in those states have contested that for as long as I can remember in my nearly 50 years. If those states were interested in increasing hunter opportunity or even controlling overpopulated deer, wouldn't Sunday hunting be a real good option. Yes, I know that Jersey makes an exception the Sunday Blue Law for archers, please don't nit pick to avoid the germane point. We in NY take Sunday hunting for granted, but I will tell you if you lost that day you would feel it big time... I will tell you something else: Jersey is the nations most densely populated state talking people... In contrast NY has over 8 million acres of PUBLIC deer habitat open to hunting. Not to mention private land. NJ firearm deer season is six DAYS long. In NY you can hunt deer from September to mid December and if you include the town of Ithaca and Long Island you can hunt them longer!! A deer a day in Ithaca! And Ithaca still has a "deer problem"... Even Pennsylvania's firearm deer season is only 10 days long... NJ has had very good mourning dove populations for many decades. Only in recent years has NY seen big numbers. (Yes some smart guy will call me and cite that in the EMU Jerseys numbers have declined slightly - but guess what that's an fluctuation within the normal range - no biological significance.) Jersey hunters have long been interested in a mourning dove season since the 70s or earlier. Two or three years ago NJ finally designated the mourning dove a migratory game bird and there has been no action to set a hunting season. In the interim , Jersey did things nobody ever would believe or want: A bear season, a cross bow season, Hunting deer over bait, a 50 yard set back for bow hunting. Around 1981 NJ began requiring trapper education, however only one or two years later NJ banned the leghold trap and legalized snares. NJ has required people for IDK 70 years - to apply for a card with the police where you live to buy long guns and possess them.... People have hold me they waited over a year to get their card even though state law mandates the police issue or deny within 30 days. You also when in a vehicle have to case your gun or lock it in your trunk in Jersey. Jersey also has one of the most powerful and numerous anti hunting/anti trapping lobbies in the world, constantly telling the world that only 1% of NJ residents hunt. No thanks, lets not emulate New Jersey... Pennsylvania? Well they have allowed mourning dove hunting for many years and they recognize hunting with dogs and training of hunting dogs very well in their regulations. They also fought tooth and nail along with the feds to win federal court decisions regarding the management of mute swans while NY sat back, rolled over to the antis and only after the work was done in the courts revamped its mute swan plan - which is currently open for public comment by the way but you only have about a week so get going... PA's Sunday Blue Law prohibiting hunting requires a legislative change, the PGC does not have the authority to change it - sound familiar NY? Yes they allow crossbows - however when hunting small game and waterfowl in PA I encounter many archers, but yet to see someone using a crossbow. A PA WCO (game warden) told me I could find a good buck near one of their buildings and that 150 feet was legal (he mistaken me for someone who eats deer). But he also cautioned me that unlike NY if you cross through a safety zone , even with a cased gun or bow in route to a location - that is considered hunting and you would be in violation. When I asked about the game land parking areas close to houses or buildings he did the "law officer shuffle" and changed the subject... PA also has a year-round season on coyotes and hunters there are still whining that the coyotes are the root of the turkey population decline they, like NY are both currently experiencing. A year round coyote season - yeah ok, that's the way to win public acceptance of hunting and keep access open... While doing nothing to help turkey populations...

Doc, For all I know you might be dead right that this is courting of hunters. I started looking at this a different way however, and wanted to get the opinion of others or verification. I think something I said offended you and I know what it is, I should have phrased it differently, it wasn't meant to offend or criticize you or anyone else. I am the first to admit I really don't know what the heck is going on! I am just trying to connect the dots!

Hold on, I am not asking if the DEC can introduce bills, off course they can not. Are you saying you think they can lobby the state senate and assembly as well as the governor to sponsor bills? I am not sure about that, that is my question, do you know for a fact if they can? Also, I wouldn't say the CC "assists" the DEC. I think is more accurate to say they at best give their input and at worst mouth off with unfounded opinions and/or demand ridiculous things. I tried to make my inquiry about the CC's role as clear as possible and cant do any better, try to re-read it and if still doesn't make sense don't worry about it.