mike rossi

Then stop talking about the assault weapon provision and focus on the ammo sales... Instead of assault rifle being what comes to mind when people hear safe act change the association to ammo back ground checks with a hefty fee per transaction, done by the state police.

If it is the operating system, than why does a typing in the link also not work AND give a bogus error message such as: " the link does not exist"... When the link certainly does exist and otherwise functions 100% perfectly?

Virgil, Off course it does. So does shooting at large groups of birds. Expect it to get worse with the Duck Dynasty effect...

Search You Tube for this title: Native & Introduced North American Doves Doves - Pigeons - Wild - Domestic - Feral

Virgil, I don't think your point was well received... Large hunting parties with each hunter using a 3 shot semi autoloader don't get weaned off of sky blasting as quick as one or two hunters because with all that steel in the air occasionally a bird falls. All the You Tube Videos and commercially produced videos more often than not portray waterfowl hunting that way. I hesitated to say that because it might actually encourage more people to hunt with semi autos, in large groups, and sky blast, rather than learn how to waterfowl... Few birds are scratched down, fewer are recovered , many more absorb pellets and fly on, and even more - get educated. Since waterfowl sometimes live for 20 or 30 years in the wild, a few educated birds can keep the younger and/or uneducated away from hunters for many years.... It is remarkable that you say one of these groups was with a guide. If you are going to guide hunters you have to pass up some money and be selective and only book clients who will follow your directives... However, most hunters, especially those with the money to pay a guide, know it all, are high status in society and therefore will not take directives because they are not accustomed to being told what to do... . Actually it may not have been the hunters fault in the scenario you describe - if the guide wasn't skilled enough to get the birds in gun range or to know when to call the shot, they paid him for a boat ride out in public navigable waters anybody can legally hunt... However, even if the outfitter/guide was at fault in that respect, the hunters still bear the responsibility of knowing their effective shooting range.

Don't elevate police officers to validate the defects of a teacher.... I want to forget about teachers & cops and discuss non hunting stakeholders and managing competing land uses on public lands. If you are done with this thread fine, but I have not found a non hunters stamp on the FWS website. Did you mean this was in the idea stage or proposed or did you literally mean it has already been created?

So the tone of the OP is that he believes that all waterfowl, regardless of species or diet tastes terrible. Many others on here have expressed the exact same belief, including eating Canadas and snows. How do you respond to them?

The intent of the law is that wildlife is not to be used for target practice. Read up on the North American Conservation Model.

GB: First, your tone the last few posts sounds like you think that I am fully disagreeing with you. I am not, except the part about sportsmen solidarity. On that topic I agree with Doc for the reasons he had given and for the other reasons I had given. Regarding your encounter with the class, the parts of this thread relevant to competing land uses all focused on conservation lands such as wmas, refuges, coops, and conservation easements. We also discussed that like hunting, environmental education is one of the public priority uses of Pitman-Robertson Lands. If your encounter with the teacher and her class occurred on a conservation land would your perspective be different? I would be more critical of her, however I still do not excuse her incompetence even if it was Long Island and even if it was a hunter legally accessing navigable water from a public or private marina. Any educator, IMO, should have a broad knowledge base. Furthermore, even though this did not occur on PR Lands, you did in fact indicate it was some sort of nature or environmental field trip. For that reason where it occurred does not matter very much and any teacher of ecological matters should be expected to have a fair amount of knowledge about hunting and its relationship to conservation, and its controversial position in society. Any teacher , especially when taking students outside the school, has a responsibility to be prepared for reasonably likely encounters. The encounter was a duck hunter, not an outer space alien... I think a duck hunter at a marina in the autumn can be reasonably expected, and I wont say even in LI, I would say especially in LI given its waterfowling tradition and abundance of birds. That tradition as well as LI's function as a fall staging and wintering area for a large number of waterfowl bolsters my argument - If the teacher wasn't up on the seasonal influx of waterfowl in the immediate area what was she teaching about, African Big Game? If your teaching ecology on LI in the autumn you are going to cover waterfowl - Period... I have an off shoot question about this. Did you have your retriever with you? How did it react to the cat-calls from the students or more accurately the little bass turds?

You don't make it taste good by trying to cover up the taste, get a cookbook or go online. My wife never uses heavy marinades or any crap like that... I am not the cook around here, but I am told you don't cook duck or goose like poultry, but like beef... Hunting is a haven for BS, always has been, perhaps publicizing waterfowl was not good to eat was actually a conservation effort back in the days following the era when so many were killed by market hunters they were depleted? (Think about it: they were depleted by market hunters to supply grocers and restaurants - how bad do you think they actually taste)? To the guy that went to Quebec, and found the birds tasted better, I was wondering if you did the cooking at home but the guide service did the cooking in Canada? The diet of brant is 80% eelgrass. Canvasbacks, which are divers, are considered to be the best eating duck. Cans eat a lot of sago pondweed, but they also eat a lot of eelgrass and its close relative which grows in less saline waters, the wild celery. I am not on a mission to promote waterfowl hunting and bring in more hunters - Robertson already ducked that up... But it sounds like you and others think hunters don't eat ducks and geese/brant. Not true, and in the opinion of many waterfowlers, they are good eating and do not require heavy marinades or whatever. You might be short changing yourself on one of the great things about waterfowling if you don't eat them...

GB, The way you are discussing this is confusing it. Now it sounds like I am reneging on my earlier statement about interpretive leaders providing their group with info that does not facilitate anti hunters. I am not reneging. The particular example you given about a teacher does not represent good education. And what I said about the DEC and other agencies failure to prepare the public to appreciate hunting , respect hunters and not interfere with the activity of hunting - ie. running your dog through someone's field decoys... Is not the same either. This conversation is all over the place and everyone is not on the same page... I am asking you again, please break it down into smaller parts...

And yes, as you said, others want more access. I have warned about state wildlife agencies, including, or more accurately - especially the NY DEC, as well as the FWS, actively encouraging the public at large to recreate on conservation lands. I have also advised sportsmen to volunteer and indicated that the ratio of sportsmen who volunteer in conservation is lower than non shooting conservationists, some of which are antis. In particular I informed sportsmen that NY and NJ are two of the non hunting states which are along with the hunting states have started banding mourning doves since 1997. I advised that volunteer opportunities to assist with banding at Great Swamp were filled by non hunters and that there may be opportunities at other locations. I mention doves , there are far more numerous examples, but understanding the tug a war going on over doves it is remarkable that sportsmen aren't making a contribution and others are... So lets get back to your statement that everybody wants more access. Yes the wildlife agencies are promoting the outdoors and encouraging the use of conservation lands to the public majority, fine. But are they preparing them to respect hunters and the sport of hunting, like the teacher you spoke of did not? Are they teaching the public the central role of hunting in conservation - as the teacher you spoke of did not? For as long as I have been alive hunters have been told not to offend the general public, yet now that the public is actually out there, are they getting the reciprocal message to respect us? Hunters are to blame themselves. Most have responded to me that it is public land. Why, because they believe the more chaos and filth going on the more they might get away with things they want to do, like use their ATVs or drive off road on conservation lands. I have not posted about this and it is not by accident I did not: But for the past 2 summers the DEC has been sending wildlife technicians to WMAs to survey people about their opinions about unmanned target shooting ranges on WMAs. I am against it and I am glad they were asking people using the lands BT - before target shooting. Because the people who will support it are not there in the summer but will come in droves AT- after target shooting... Asking the people who it would impact is appropriate. But this is an example of a social issue being handed in part to the public majority. Hunters are going to beach about this, just watch what posts below.. But it makes sense to do it this way. Within the realm of defined uses of Pitman Robertson Lands and besides what is classed as public priority uses there is a broader designation called "legitimate uses". Some uses are considered legitimate and others are just plain prohibited. Interference with public priority uses and disturbing wildlife is also prohibited. I cant see how it can be considered responsible to promote use of these lands without also educating the public about these concepts.

If the teacher was professional he/she should have discussed hunting BEFORE the field trip AND advised students that hunters may be afield. Reacting after the fact shows failure to prepare for something that was reasonably predictable AND lack of competence by neglecting to prepare the students about an activity (hunting) very central to conservation. The fact that the students "booed" you is proof positive these kids were already biased against hunting and the teacher had not addressed it. Hey, I guess they figure if its a sport, they can act like spectators... Not - on public conservation lands you are prohibited from excessive noise as well as disorderly conduct. Hunter harassment also was not addressed, including that it is a punishable offense of the law.... I think that teacher has some learning to do himself...

Am I talking to myself again or did we reach agreement? OK I will move on. GB states the antis are continually stating wildlife watchers are more numerous than hunters. That is a true statement and we need to be cautious with this. Wildlife watchers are much more numerous, have a larger voice, and outspend us. Along with hunting, wildlife watching is one of the seven or so "Public Priority Uses" of Pitman Robertson Lands. However, avid wildlife watchers are not necessarily anti hunters. That is a pipe dream or embellishment of anti hunters. However the behavior of hunters will determine if they accept hunting or become frustrated and join the antis. The antis will have a tough time recruiting them otherwise. Since they read good material and participate in organized trips which are led by someone who interprets and teaches, they are not highly susceptible to the unscientific or emotional drivel of anti hunters. There was a proposal to attach the Pitman Robertson Tax to binoculars and bird seed about 10 or 15 years ago which congress rejected. However, wildlife watchers and the NGOs they support make substantial voluntary donations of cash, labor, time, and land. All that being said I want to comment on the idea of attaching a conservation tax to bird seed. According to the FWS: "bird watchers use bird seed to aid them in observing birds". True, but so do many others I would not put in the same category as birders. Furthermore, feeding wildlife is not always consistent with good conservation. The third concern might resonate a little more with one of Grey Beard's concerns he expressed earlier in this thread. Over half of the 40 lower states which allow the hunting of mourning doves as well as the remaining 8 lower states which do not, have experienced a tremendous opposition to establishing hunting seasons. Not only has this occurred over a large geographic area, i.e. the entire United States, but it has been going on for 40 years or more. The main driver has been the DC based HSUS. The HSUS has been surprisingly successful in blocking dove hunting nationwide for over 40 years using just a few standard stock arguments. One of those is that people who maintain bird feeders will have reduced opportunities to observe mourning doves if hunting seasons are established. The average homeowner with a bird feeder is much more numerous than the avid birder who understands conservation and also has a bird feeder for the purpose stated by the fish and wildlife service. Despite published research suggesting a distinction between "rural doves" and "suburban doves" this argument, among others, has been accepted by state legislators. Furthermore mourning doves are so abundant, ranked 11th in relative abundance of all birds in the USA, it is unlikely few if any people who notice less doves at their feeders. Taking that two steps farther... Most doves migrate and as they do others may or may not occupy the same feeders. Then consider that half of the population lives less than one year even if no hunting occurred anywhere. Too make a long story short, people would not notice less doves at their feeders due to hunting as promoted by the HSUS and accepted by state lawmakers. A conservation tax on bird seed captures too many people some of which do not use wise conservation practices and/or condone ideologies that are not consistent with conservation. Such a tax may lead to a "misunderstanding".... For more information follow our face book page.

Another thing: If you do give away any migratory bird you must tag it with your personal information, including your hunting license number the date, and the personal info of the person you gave it to. You need to leave a wing or head attached to each bird and itemize the species and if ducks the sex as well, on the tag. Probably a good idea to include your HIP number too. As a matter of fact you are not supposed to even leave migratory birds with a hunting partner and then hunt semi separately in the field unless tagged. Someone on face book was beaching about a $700 or $800 fine for this last fall. They left in separate vehicles and the other dude didn't want his birds. It was opening day and he was over the possession limit. He explained this and in return he got an explanation of the laws he broke and a ticket...

You should be aware of this: http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wanton-waste/

It is impossible to promote ethics and fair chase amongst hunters if we take a anything goes attitude. The adoption of that attitude makes it even more impossible to promote acceptance of hunting to the public majority who do not hunt but likewise do not necessarily oppose hunting. As already stated a significant factor in poor recruitment and RETENTION of hunters is the behavior of other hunters. While some are touting the solidarity chant many more are distancing themselves from the sport... Early in the history of game laws when market hunting was banned, so-called "sportsmen" decided what was sporting and what was not sporting and made recommendations for regulations based on what they thought was ethical, fair chase, and distributed the game resource fairly. This is "nothing new". Neither are the disagreements among sportsmen... Basically, that philosophy is saying because of anti hunters; individual sportsmen should no longer contribute to social decisions about what is ethical, sporting, fair chase, and distributes opportunity fairly. Or even express their own opinions... Bad Idea... Yet, hypocritically, we are supposed to unconditionally agree with the socio-political agenda handed down by the politically connected... In other words, organizations and individuals should not be divisive and thou shall not buck the system...

And who else besides the state government was a driver in this? I am about sick of repeating myself on here about this. WHO? WHO ELSE??? Hint Number 1: They are fat, old, red faced, rich, politically connected, arrogant, and claim to represent you... Hint Number 2: They are NOT employed by the DEC... Hint Number 3: They are NOT anti-hunters... Hint Number 4: They are NOT liberals... Hint Number 4: They are NOT "tree huggers"... Hint Number 5: It is NOT Obama... Hint Number 6: Only one or two are from out of state... Hint Number 7: It is NOT a federal conspiracy... Hint Number 8: It has NOTHING to do with the safe act... Hint Number 9: It has NOTHING to do with the safe act... Hint Number 10: It has NOTHING to do with the safe act...

You know, that is too much at once. Lets break it down... First: If new funding strategies for conservation are going to be manipulated by anti hunters, that is the DEC's job to iron out, but I think it already is... Non hunters can already buy a variety of stamps to support conservation, there is no need to attach identity to them by naming then non hunters stamps. The name of the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp has already been changed to the Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp. That name change is a better description but does not give identity to any group - including hunters. Anti hunting organizations have enough money and if they wanted to engage in conservation partnerships with the DEC like legitimate conservation organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, and other NGOs they are welcome to do so, they certainly have a big enough budget. To create a conservation stamp which by name gives identity to non hunters, so that they can compile accounting records to bolster a political agenda, doesn't pass the giggle test. Besides being disingenuous and duplicating something already in place, such a duplicated effort would require some administration costs, in another words less bang for your buck. That by itself goes against the grain of wildlife and fisheries agencies which are accustomed to small staffs and low budgets, and historically use money as efficiently as possible.

Doc, You cant fight what you call cultural evolution. You must adapt your plan for the future. We need to start fostering acceptance of hunting by the public majority as a sport pursued by a small minority and which contributes a minority amount of conservation revenue. Along with that revenue hunting serves as a tool of wildlife managers, not just as the most known function of population control and nuisance abatement, but its function in helping managers collect biological data and monitor species...

Its easier to get members of the general public to accept hunting than it is to get them to become hunters. This is the only realistic approach to countering anti-hunting legislation and stake holder comment against hunting when conservation policy or hunting regulations are being considered. Besides the realm of political support for hunting; as far as hunters numbers, fewer the better works for me. The problem with that is that hunting an integral part of the funding strategy for conservation. It is no longer the only source of conservation funds and other sources are growing as hunter revenue is dropping. But license and excise tax revenue derived from hunting is still is a lot of money which is very important to conservation programs. There is one factor that has been identified, which effects BOTH recruitment and causes hunters to dessert the sport that isn't widely publicized. That factor is the poor behavior of "other" hunters. Enough people can see over the dorky or dark images anti hunters paint hunters as, but when we act like pigs we earn disrespect without the help of anti hunters.

I would imagine concentrations of snow geese winter on the Hudson River near you? I would also think autumn and spring migrators stage on the Hudson River. The Conservation Order Snow Goose Hunting Season extends into spring migration, by the way. Finding a hunting location and gaining access is an entirely different question and is hard work, don't expect anyone to reveal that info. Disturbance management, including hunting pressure, is what keeps waterfowl hunting locations productive. However few are willing to put in the effort, but if you are, you can find hunting locations. After you invest the effort, believe me, you wont be advertising where to hunt on the internet.

20 gauge is lighter to lug through grouse cover...

How many state reps will run uncontested next election? Is any organization on that or isn't it an issue?

You didn't say how old or how much experience your beagle has, but I don't think I ever met a beagle that wont hunt. I can tell you we were out yesterday with bird dogs and there was a lot of tracks in the on-and-off falling snow. The dogs had to get on their bellies and crawl for over 5 minutes to get each cottontail moving. I picked about 100 pieces of thorns from them afterward. We also got some grouse - but not in soft wood stands. They have small home ranges and will use soft woods for winter cover if is available amongst their other habitat needs, but they do not make seasonal migrations or movements into evergreen stands. Since pure soft wood stands to not provide everything the bird needs on a year round basis don't expect to find many (or any) deep inside a conifer plantation.