mike rossi

People who enter duck stamp competitions pay for conservation too - thanks for the contribution and good luck!

Can no longer paste text or links, and when links are typed in they do not work.

I am reserved about the notion that TV show will have a positive influence on hunting or stamp revenue. Speaking of which, as an artist you can compete in the duck stamp art contest every year. Entry fees are put in the (federal) migratory bird conservation fund, along with stamp revenue and proceeds from the sale of prints. There is also a junior division. Details are on the US Fish and Wildlife Service website. Although NY discontinued their state migratory bird stamp (go figure - guess a few individuals decided they didn't want the fund growing too big you know...) other states issue a state stamp and have similar art contests, as a matter of fact PGC (Pennsylvania Game Commission) posted about their contest today on their facebook page.

Why you all cant do bolean internet searches I don't know, but I compiled a partial list, but this site no longer supports pasting, ask the webmaster to fix it, let me know when its fixed, and I will paste it...

Not what I meant. 1) TV showing women hunting influences some women to hunt 2) Duck Dynasty has influenced some people of either gender to hunt waterfowl.

With so many people from LI asking the same question, you guys should write your regional DEC office and ask for an informational meeting or at least info. If you guys squeak enough, you can get the DEC to develop cooperative hunting areas or access - don't let the old bass turds on the NYSCC tell you there is no money, no staff and all that bull, let them fondle their crossbows and antlers and get it done by yourselves at the local grass roots level. This revolving query is really hard to believe, because there is so much navigable water and several waterfowl organizations on LI and additionally, several retriever clubs. Also, take the DEC waterfowl identification course, the instructor may touch a bit on access.

As far as television is concerned, and to a large extent hunting magazines, women hunters are getting a lot of air time, publicity and press. My wife hunts and traps, and agrees with me that with some individuals it is a fad. Same with Duck Dynasty, although luckily NY has not felt it, many waterfowlers in other states are claiming the influx of so many new hunters is seemingly influenced by the Robertson clan. Recent surveys have reported 11% of all new hunters being females, although I don't believe all of that is because of TV, but I am sure some of it is. More importantly is the gender shift in wildlife biologists. In recent years, most students enrolled in wildlife/fisheries studies are females and most of them never had any exposure to hunting. This trend will create a situation in the future with people with no exposure to hunting managing hunters.

I got to admit that is an excellent post Elmo, but there still are some moot points unsettled. Wildlife managers incorporate the concept of aesthetics into policy. Aesthetics is very important to the experience of some hunters and many people who participate in non-consumptive wildlife-related recreation. Sighting a raptor during a hunt doesn't detract from aesthetics, its enhances them. The same can not be said for people dressed in street clothes, talking, and wandering around. Its one thing to encounter a hunter, a bird watcher, or a farmer, even when the farmer has his honey wagon in tow - these things characterize both the outdoor culture and rural America. Other things are simply out of place and in some cases impact wildlife-dependent recreation or wildlife itself. Wildlife managers also consider over-use of public land in policy as well. Be reminded the DEC accepts our input (stake holder input, public comment) on biological issues and social issues like antlers and crossbows. The issue of over use of public lands is both a biological and a social issue and is no different, the DEC should allow stakeholder input. If you think the level of human presence is appropriate on the public lands you hunt you can say so and vice versa... I want to emphasize the concept of managing over use and maintaining aesthetics is not something I made up or is some radical new idea - this is a basic part of natural resource management. However, when politics enter, and stakeholder input in a sense is politics; various concepts and principles get compromised.

But why are you and others so passionate about this specific issue? More than one person on here has regurgitated HSUS dove rhetoric, yet you didn't dive in. Either did anyone else. As a matter of fact, you questioned them as table fare due to size. Why would you assume millions - as many people hunt doves as whitetail are complete morons by eating them? Someone else raised the issue they mate for life, to which I informed him that although true, the life span is seldom more than 12 months and over half the population is succumbs to natural deaths within the first year. In contrasts, foxes also mate for life, but live for several years in the wild. Someone on here posted a real nice mount of a pair of gray fox, but when his neighbor in LI says 'OMG, OMG" you killed a mated pair, what is he going to do tell her the tale of little red riding hood and the big bad wolf - millions have heard that tale as well you know... Point is we have a pervasive mentality within our ranks that we are animal control heroes and predators in particular are deleterious. Not only is this mentality embarrassing, it doesn't foster respect for hunting with the public at large who don't fall for it. If you do not share that mentality, then why are you passionate about this issue? What about that TV host who stirred things up by posing with a lion, why does what happens in Africa , hunting a declining species - which costs $100,000 by the time its all said and activate so many hunters? I didn't hear early regurgitate anything from peta, but several hunters, including you, regurgitated stuff from the hsus regarding doves, do you mind if I call you the resident hsus member? You know doc, your smart enough and old enough to know that hunters have made these sort of debates a sport in themselves and not only do they not know what they are talking about half the time - they don't even know WHY they are getting involved in issues that will never effect them...

Not sure I understand what you mean, but if you are saying Wildlife Services interfaces with hunters or is involved in wildlife management/science/policy/law you are mistaken. Wildlife Services is an agency within the US Department of Agriculture. Their function is to help farmers and ranchers remove problem animals. They probably staff a few biologists but it is not a scientific agency. It is not a law enforcement agency either. And they don't get involved with policy or regulation making. They kill animals for agriculture producers paid for by the tax payer - farmers and ranchers obtain this service for free. They have no authority to tell anyone what to do or not to do and they don't advocate for any policy. Also the video is a little misleading when it says that they are not under any governing regulations - that simply is not true, they do not operate under the same regulations as sport hunters, fur trappers and private nuisance wildlife trappers, but they certainly are bound by many laws.

Its up again but the link does not work. To view go to You Tube and search this title: EXPOSED - USDA's Secret War on Wildlife

Since of reoccurring theme here is recovering a deer, lets put a little spin on it... On a WMA you arrow a trophy. It is 7:49 am and while waiting for the buck to "stiffen up" a group of non hunters who had parked next to you come through, not at you, but close enough to push your buck onto land posted by a real tight fist or otherwise make it impossible to recover. You lose the deer and it rots (well not really, nothing in nature is wasted ,but I will go with the flow). How would you all react to that?

Its not everyday that someone tracks a deer were you are hunting and I would just write that hunt off as a loss. But there are other scenarios that are "the same but different". Taking off time from work, paid or unpaid is one thing. But there is also other "investments" in a hunt besides time and money. Then hunting has both legal restrictions on when & where you can hunt and then the weather man adds in other constraints. Not all public land is created equal. On federal conservation lands and on state conservation lands which have ever received federal conservation funds there is a policy regarding Priority Public Uses. Hunting is one of those. So is bird watching, by the way. If I get to a duck hole and a bird watcher is there first, then I would go to plan B. They should do the same in the vice versa. (Operant word is "should". I am making no suggestion that this is any law - it is about ethics, safety, and courtesy- the things some of our parents taught us, that essentially mean the world does NOT revolve around you... ) In the first place if I arrive and see a vehicle parked there, depending on what I know about the land, the ethical decision might begin right in the parking area. Not only do some people not care less that someone is there first, some will actually seek out others: 1) in hopes of being in a good spot 2) to socialize or curiosity 3) to harass. What about non priority users? Some non priority uses are legal but some are not legal - good luck getting any of that enforced and if you got the gun and eat meat the situation can easily get convoluted. Don't confront but take film them. If the cops wont earn there donuts just put it on you tube and make a fool out of the slobs. The amount of preparation that can go into one duck hunt is huge. We have constraints of the law, including firearm discharge, the birds activity within the legal season, the weather, ice, water level, flow speed, wind direction, wind speed, cover, habitat where the birds go, access with equipment, crop harvest... Complex planning and lugging equipment over rough terrain at 3 am can be destroyed because a couple of grown adults want to decide to take their dogs for a romp at 8am at a wma and with 15 parking areas choose the only one occupied with a truck because they see a dog box and dog tracks in the snow. So what ELSE is wrong with that picture? They are not hunting, not licensed to hunt, yet their dogs are loose in the cover. That is both a wildlife impact and from my understanding not legal. It is a non priority user interfering with a priory user who got there first. What else? Large unneutered, untrained dogs approaching a rig. Hunters have a dog as well and that dog thinks those decoys belong to his family. Wild waterfowl are wary, but it wouldn't be a first if birds lite into the spread when people and dogs are moving. If the hunters shoot will the metrosexual's dog bolt off into the countryside? Will it try to steal the retrieve from the hunters' dog? Too many contingencies, eh? Nobody can own, nobody- enough land to hunt waterfowl - they fly, they migrate, and they are habitat specialists unlike whitetails or even turkeys. If your a waterfowler you are using other peoples land and /or public land, public, navigatible water. The public land conundrum is a combination of ignorance, spite, and just plain selfishness. Education is for the ignorant and law enforcement is for the other two... Natural resource agencies, including the DEC and FWS have been very active in promoting public lands, including conservation lands to the public at large in recent years. To the extent in my opinion, that has violated their mandate to prevent public overuse. They have not developed an education strategy to keep up with the new faces on public land and they have ALSO not stressed this enough with sportsmen and it shows in the increased number of slob hunters. This needs to be addressed more seriously and soon as it can spiral out of control in a hurry...

http://youtu.be/qSV8pRLkdKl

Lets face it, I trap, but the trappers, especially in this state, the NY trappers association have done a very good job of gaining public acceptance. A lot of that success has to do with licensed wildlife control trappers and fur trappers providing services for property owners , municipalities, etc... The fur market crash might actually have preserved trapping because trappers found other ways (including the taxidermy market) to counterbalance the depressed fur market. As more trappers entered into nuisance abatement it convinced the public it was something "needed". I doubt the public at large thinks very highly of trappers or trapping, but views them as "tools", kind of like my view of law enforcement...

Nothing with the actual hunting of them, it is in the attitude toward them. Non -hunters, and I don't necessarily mean confirmed anti-hunters generally will not accept collection of trophies. The guy who has a pelt on his wall because he thinks its unique wont offend the level-headed but the trophy hunter whose focus is on pelts and mounts is a different story. Taking them opportunistically while deer hunting isn't exactly fox hunting either, but I wouldn't condemn that for one pelt taken as a trophy. I wouldn't condemn trapping or shooting a bunch for the fur market either. The problems root in an unsophisticated conservation ethic and backward thinking about predators in general. Predators kill other animals to eat - we get it. Guess what, they been doing that forever... And the deer and turkey are still here... What exasperates conflict is when hunters demonize predators and then describe their personal role or the role of hunters as some sort of "Angel of Mercy" by taking predators.

Bubba; If we stick to the OP thought, which is about upland bird hunting, and I believe more specifically, hunting for liberated pheasant on public land, the perspective is different. As in other forms of hunting, you don't shoot unless you know precisely where other members of your group are. Still, the entire nature of (this) activity is different then other forms of hunting. It is not possible to have that awareness 100% of the time - but the bigger percentage of time you do the less times you have to pass up shots. Even with copious amounts of blaze you still lose visual contact during bird hunting, couldn't imagine camo. The second issue is other hunters. The sooner you see each other, the sooner one or the other can "yield". That doesn't always occur- people who don't know how to hunt or are slobs just keep working toward or paralle to each other, like aggressive drivers. The correct thing to do is either move off in a different direction or if far enough back let the other hunter(s) pass before you continue. The group or solo hunter further along the terrain feature (fence, hedgerow. etc.) or deeper in the cover has the "right of way". As three or more of us said here; there certainly are unethical people hunting pheasants ( pheasant hunters) who do the exact opposite of avoiding other hunters and instead cut off, intercept or very unsafely lurk alongside - even covertly. Everyone of those unethical hunters we see is indeed wearing blaze. Are others doing the same in camo at time which are never seen? A legal requirement for blaze during upland hunting would help somewhat because LE would be able to pick up a fraction of those hunters who do not comply and especially the ones who "lurk" for pheasants. Off course education trumps LE any day. I am not going to get into a pissing contest with Bubba or anyone else about this, but the last time relatives took hunter ed it was all about deer hunting. As a matter of fact, one instructor asked the class if anyone plans to hunt waterfowl, which several people indicated yes. The instructor then said he has something to say about it (waterfowl hunting) but will get back to it, he never got back to it... Even if you never hunt anything but firearm deer season to be safe and competent you need to have some general awareness about other forms of recreation that may be encountered. Same goes for non consumptive users. Birders tend to be more sophisticated then the others, including hunters, but the other land users are clueless. If you are going to be out on public conservation lands you should be responsible for some degree of awareness. I have cautioned against taking money from the public majority for access to WMAs, as is sought in Maryland, because it will build a sense of entitlement, however there should be some educational strategy in place. Likewise hunter education should be expanded. On the other end of the spectrum. blaze can be taken to far. I have seen hunters wear it while hunting dove and turkey. I have also seen magazines or e-articles of it being used during youth waterfowl hunts. Certain groups such as The American Kennel Club (AKC), and The North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association (NAVDA) require members to wear blaze during their sanctioned events when live ammunition will be used. I am sure the intent is to pound safety into youth and novices, but if they cant make simple delineations, ie. the different nature of duck and grouse hunting related to blaze orange, they may not be ready to start hunting in the first place...

If my hunting partner and I did not wear blaze while hunting upland birds we would forfeit many opportunities because we would not know exactly were each other was. Yes, you can & should maintain voice contact... And you also should adopt the policy that " if its low, let it go"... But without blaze many opportunities would (still) be lost. Outside of your own hunting party is an entirely different issue. As crappyice & doe whacker said here, unethical hunters try to collect the paycheck for your hard work, and do it in a way that endangers both themselves and the hunters they are trying to sponge off of. Pretty ridiculous that someone would get satisfaction from hunting that way but there out there. At least these days you can avoid crowds, twenty or thirty years ago there were many more bird hunters. We stay a way from peak hunting activity but still use blaze.

Is this something to do with anti-hunting or is it just the world of the internet?

I suspect this organization will appeal to sportsmen who own land and/or sit on advisory board and/or are club or organization board members and/or are in positions of authority and/or influence and/or have money... Then those same people are going to use their status and their easy access to the media to convince the average sportsman that this group is comprised of solid right wing conservatives looking out for the average hunter.... Then the majority of average hunters will fall for it....

I am undecided, but I am decided it wasn't very professional . Also, why don't they tell people that if they decide to walk their dogs on WMAs they might encounter gunshots which could frighten their dogs, even causing them to run off into the countryside? If you hunt with dogs on some wmas you are likely to encounter non hunting dog people who think its wonderful idea to walk up to you with their dog to greet you and your dog. What if a hunter takes a shot at that time, how will their dog react? Not to mention bothering the other dog at work or worse a dog fight. If you are going to cover an issue, be thorough. This seems to be an agenda not a public service message...

Is that a Loyalty-based belief or one you given your own mind to? Old growth forest supports a different menu of animals, true. But the DEC doesn't even have the political support from the sporting community and very often faces resistance from CFAB to use the conservation fund for habitat work on WMAs - the lands which are rightfully supposed to undergo habitat management. As a matter of fact, just this past year, the sporting community AND sportsmen advisory boards supported Governor Cuomo's proposal to lower fees for sporting licenses thereby increasing the burn-rate of the state conservation fund and lowering the potential for federal conservation funds. Those state and federal funds could be appropriately used to acquire, restore, or maintain snowshoe hare habitat outside the Forest Preserve on other lands designated as WMAs. If the sporting community was sincere about conservation they would not oppose maintaining a significant amount of old growth forest and would cooperate with the DEC's green initiatives. They do not, which is proof positive this forest preserve rhetoric is all about driving and shooting all over the state and boosting the right wing agenda, reelecting conservatives & republicans, and NOT about conservation of snowshoe hares. There is plenty of land already designated as WMAs and plenty of money to both acquire more acres and fund a more ambitious small game habitat program. That would include expanding WMAs in snowshoe hare country and managing them for snowshoe hare. Obviously the political support of the NY sporting community does not exist for that, but that doesn't deter them from citing the snowshoe hare and other legitimate conservation concerns whenever it is consistent with any part of their overall agenda regarding the forest preserve or anything else.

Don't fall for this.... http://prfamerica.org/indices/HighwaysNY-Index.html

Don't know what to think of this but find it disingenuous. Seems to be an anti hunting publicity stunt ? http://youtu.be/DroWulEOGyY

Not sure of how genuine this video is, because it seems to be for routing viewers to a TV channel. It also seems to be a spin off of both the duck dynasty and the women in hunting craze. Never the less , at least from this short clip, it puts hunting in a favorable image, unlike the recent you know who and what disaster... http://youtu.be/DkHLIaogb-Q