mike rossi

The dog has to be trained to work around or with the cane and for a person who has their eyes covered. Dogs are very attuned to body language and watch our eyes - if a dog isn't accustomed to working for someone wearing sunglasses there may be an issue. Not really a good idea for a retriever to watch its handlers eyes, by the way. I am not talking about dogs feeling challenged by eye contact. Enhancing the natural tendency for dogs to read body language and training them to hold eye contact has become popular with some trainers that do not hunt, but it causes retrievers to pop and hurts their ability to mark falls. The theory behind it is that if the dog is always looking at you it cant get into trouble... I certainly wouldn't use that training principle for gun dog retrievers. Actually it may be helpful for trainers of retrievers to wear sunglasses if their dog is overly dependent on instructions instead of watching the sky for birds... I am seeing more and more overly dependent retrievers as this technique is popularized and hunters try it out or send their dogs to obedience classes or trainers. Ditto for dogs coming out of shelters and rescues. It can be dealt with, but if you have a clean slate I wouldn't screw with it... Some dogs are so bad, they don't even ever think of marking a bird, they expect to be lined, stopped, cast and handled to every fall!

Eventually you should look into layout blinds or make a "coffin blind" from wood. You need to "grass" or "brush" them pattern.regardless of the camo pattern. Some recommend "mudding" them as well, that is painting them with mud before using, I don't find that necessary, but I certainly don't wash them either when they get muddy until the season ends anyway... Besides the low profile the other advantage is that you can "flag" geese. I suppose that can be done in an upright blinds as well, but it seems that wouldn't look as natural. Flagging is just as important as calling and decoys. The disadvantages to layouts are that they are harder to shoot from and you must watch out for road hunters or on foot pot shooters who will take a rifle shot into the decoys. A few goose hunters have been killed this way in Canada by farmers and one in Iowa by a deer hunter who pulled off the road and claimed he was shooting at a coyote. Off course it is illegal to use rifles for waterfowl to begin with... And, if you use a retriever, the dog must be completely steady or staked on a short chain or cable, or it could get shot if it lunges forward at the same time you shoot at low or landing birds. If you kill a few geese it might not be intuitive why you need a dog, but if you do a lot of shooting or the X is located where a few birds will sail off a crop field into heavy cover, the need for a dog is more obvious... The "X", by the way is a waterfowler's term for the location the birds are landing on a field or in the water. If you set your decoys on or close to the X, you have a better chance than pulling in what is called "traffic birds" or "traffic"..

Also I find that the biggest problem here is the voluntary response bias. The people who actually send it in are going to be those who feel strongly either way for the most part, and people who are impartial or not as likely to send it in. This will lead to weakening of the results. 1) I don't see how giving an opinion on a social issue can be a condition of buying a hunting license, sounds unconstituitional or at least contridictory to the North American Model of Conservation... 2) I imagine there are error tools to mitigate this? 3) I am not sure reluctant respondants are a target of this survey, because if a disinterested person failed to respond, I don't see how it would bias the survey, I think it would strengthen it. If we assume the intent is to distribute hunting opportunity, I don't see why disinterested/reluctant persons would be surveyed. I imagine they might even "throw out" the reluctants because their responses are not relevant to distribution of hunting opportunity? Lastly, the intro reading before the survey is extremely bias and starts giving a positive response bias towards antler restriction. At least the way I read it, it was definitely slanted toward people wanting to kill bigger bucks and seeking reform I didn't read this survey packet, but I have seen this before. There is such a thing as "Persuasive Polling" but I am not going out on a limb and suggesting this is what is going on. This always struck me as odd and I just settled it in my mind as just trying to have an upbeat tone to the introduction.

Stakeholder input, which is social pressure, does shape policy. That isn't always good or always bad but in the world of hunting we have a connected few who influence many, even against their best interests and against the best interests of the sport. Stakeholder input / public comment is not a perfect system, but if sportsmen break the cycle of institutionalized thinking the system will improve...

Not the same at all. The harvest data represents wmus, age, and sex, and whatever other biological data they might want to collect at some time like placental scars , body fat, or whatever... Besides, *** I don't think this is decided by who is bigger in numbers or socio-econo-politico status. (I know many sportsmen have a problem with that). If 799,000 hunters want AR and 1,000 do not, I think they will look at if options exist such as how far is the closest wmu without AR and how many of the 1,000 can reasonably exercise that option. All that cant be accessed with yes/no and you betcha, it might take a follow up study... Any way to begin with, if experts say a random sample of 1% of the deer hunting community is a representative cross section of the deer hunting community, what reasons do I have to doubt them? . *** According to the North American Conservation Model it definitely should NOT be decided by socio-politico-econo status AND game and hunting opportunity should be distributed fairly

You are right, I didn't read that Culver. If anyone can gripe its the small game hunters. The DEC only asked ONE question about doves in 2006 and ONE question in 2009 as part of a survey about ALL small game, it wasn't even a survey specific to doves. The DEC even states: "12% of hunters opposed a dove season but we (the DEC) did not ask or attempt to identify reasons why hunters would support or oppose a law change". Link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/59626.html For those interested in how common and how important these investigations are used as tools in wildlife policy making here are some links I had already posted before. Cornell HDR Unit: http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/hdru/index-2.html Responsive Management: http://www.responsivemanagement.com/

Culver, you said: The results were gray and the information gathering and use was very poorly explained. You put all that together surrounding a topic that is already bitterly dividing the hunting population and you just end up with a bigger divide. There were topics after topics on this forum and others surrounding the previous study. There were both sides quoting results that supported their position. and for the most part both sides were right. Same went for the crossbow topic results. 1) I doubt that the results were gray and poorly explained, That usually translates into "I didn't get my way" in the world of hunting... Other times it translates into "I don't understand this".... 2) Both sides always have valid points, the purpose of this type of investigation is to strike a balance of fairness as much as possible. As a matter of fact, you asked a few posts up about a standard for achieving equity. Here is a better answer to that question: These types of social investigations are used by wildlife managers as a tool to achieve the most fairness possible.

Before I try to answer that, I thought of some other stuff. HIP was brought up several times. For the privilege of hunting migratory game birds, hunters are required by law to help collect biological data. That is much different than requiring people to give an opinion on a social issue - no offense, but that idea is just a little silly if you think about it.... Second, all the hip data goes to people who analyze, summarize, report, and make recommendations on MB management. The buck doesn't stop at adding up body counts. The buck wouldn't stop with a social study about AR either. How do they meet that mandate with any change? there are always those in opposition and those without (or limited) access to the resource at equal levels. What standard are they measuring this by? I guess they try to do the best they can and I don't believe there is a standard. By the way, I would have thought with some of your previous posts you have made about changing regulations that you would have read the survey, at least out of curiosity. I don't hunt deer and this is mostly a social issue within the deer hunting community. I am more interested in the way hunters are reacting to this survey because the sport would be better if we are all on the same page.

No, I said earlier, I did not read it, I am hedging my bet that there is a legitimate reason for the way they are doing it and bet against that it is some conspiracy and/or revenue generating scheme.

As Phade alluded to in post 56; this is about fairness & equity, not just a show of hands... If the majority of respondants want AR, but a segment of others, restricted to public land on weekends for example, feel they will be put entirely out of business, how will the DEC perform its legal mandate to equally distribute the resource? Yes/No doesn't give you enough info to make a management decision in that regard....

You might miss people who don't use or have access to the internet. If you miss any segment of the population you bias the survey... Maybe that is why they choose to use old fashioned mail.

There is usually a public comment or stakeholder input meetings phase before most laws or regulations are actually enacted. Everybody can have their say during that period, whether they get a survey or not.

I am not a stats guy, but theoretically, using a partial sample is cheaper, faster, and yields very similar conclusions to interviewing every person. Since in this scenario people can be surveyed at the time they buy their license, cheaper and faster may not be a factor. However, as I said, the responses still have to be analyzed and summarized into a meaningful report; so the DEC would likely contract with CHDU for that anyway, as well as designing the survey questions. The contractors apparently feel that a mail survey is the way to go, rather than at the point of license sales. I don’t know why, but a clue might be in the survey itself. I did not read it; does it direct questions at inactive hunters? If inactive hunters are of interest in this survey (i.e. Did you quit because bucks are too small…); then only surveying active hunters is not sufficient… If it isn’t about inactive hunters, it may be something else…

Even if the data (responses) were collected at the point of license sales, it would still have to be analyzed. So Cornell would probably still be contracted to do the report… This is a mail survey, which circumvents minimum wage retail clerks and/or telephone interviewers who call you about election polls. However, Pennsylvania, and possibly other states, do in fact require hunters to complete their HIP survey at the time they purchase their state migratory bird hunting license. I think there are both good and bad with that, but it is easier for a retail clerk to enter a range of how many doves, crows, rail birds, woodcock, ducks and geese than it is for them to accurately enter responses to a social study… Obviously, with more and more licenses purchased online, this is less of an issue, but many still buy licenses at the counter…

You cant tally the results, analyze it, and reach a conclusion unless there is a design to the study. Besides doing it that way would bias the study one way or the other. Cornel HD research unit or someone at the DEC can give you a better explanation. Interestingly, if this or anything else is progressing into law, the public comment period can be the final determinant. If the survey shows most hunters want it, an active response opposing it during the public comment phase might trump it all. Off course, it works the other way too... To clarify what I said earlier about this study possibly being funded by the Pitman Robertson program. If it is, it is likely that the DEC applies for the grant and then pays Cornel, although they also may be able to apply, I am not sure... When you read these reports or field research, if it was funded with wildlife restoration funds (Pitman Robertson Federal Funds), it will indicate so, each grant is assigned a number which is stamped in like Made in America...

But if people are going to tout that it's not simply for increasing trophy potential then shouldn't there be some supportive data to show how the DEER will actually benefit from the changes? The public isn't as involved in the biological decisions as the social ones, And, among wildlife scientists, I don't think you will see a consensus that this will benefit deer. A few suggest the age structure is unnatural due to hunting and that this impacts deer. I don't know how well studied this impact is or if it is still in a "hypotheses" state... I do know that the deer class which spreads CWD the most is the same which AR protect - yearling bucks.... I don't follow that logic at all. So it's better to let a subset of people represent the whole rather than finding out what the position of the whole is. Just not following. The statistical method has a procedure. Each analysis most follow a study design. Its not just thrown together like most people think. To follow it you need some back ground in stats. The key words in that sentence are supposed to be and such as. That gives me about as much confidence as does the government telling me how great Obamacare is... How well the design of the study follows procedure, including how random the participants are chosen, determines the rigor, or how accurate the conclusions are. Some studies ( like those by gas/oil industries) are really lame and lack rigor, because they cherry pick the respondants or data. Randomness and quality data plus objectivity = a reliable study and vice versa... The data is supposed to be random, but sometimes it is not....

"I may of missed it but I didn't see anything indicating any improvement in the condition of the deer herd, simply bigger antlers" Its not about biology, its about sociology or human dimensions... " Seems like it would of been fairly easy and fair to all to implement the survey on the DEC site. Registration for the survey would be simple with your DEC ID number. They all registered hunters would have the ability to participate in the survey if they chose to do so". For the statistics to have "rigor" the number of participants has to be set, you cant just say whoever wants to participate go ahead. Additionally , doing it the way you suggest would bias the survey because those with vested interest are more likely to respond. " I'd really like to know the criteria used for selecting the survey participants". It is supposed to be a random sample or a random sample of a subgroup such as big game hunters.

This is from the cornel human dimensions unit. Human Dimensions is a term for the social aspects of wildlife management... This type of survey is exactly what they do, this isn't something new or super profitable for them... They have completed many (tens of thousands?) of these reports and I am sure this is not the only one in progress right now. They might receive Pitman Robertson grants for some of these studies, but I am not sure.

http://www.wildfowlmag.com/wisconsin-duck-hunters-shot-animal-rights-nut.html

As I said earlier, whoever contacted John cut and pasted the entire drivel off of the HSUS website with some "personalization" and "modification". What I failed to mention is that both the HSUS and PETA, while making a religious argument against dove hunting, have also stated that in order to advance animal rights in the United States it is necessary to rid America of Christianity and Judism. Really now, when Senator Grisanti ( and others before him) bow down to form letters sent off of the websites of these DC based organizations and stall dove bills makes a normal person shake their head...

Here is a CHURCH dove hunt! http://youtu.be/hr8KOGADHJs

Before I answer that, I want to clarify that is what I would do, I am not trying to influence what John or others do. The message John got is taken directly off of the HSUS anti-dove hunting page off their main website. We addressed all that and more. It would be redundant and only serve to annoy our readers. These people also start using inappropriate words and make irrational rants when they are called on their BS. I don't want that. That being said, a number of our followers have read this post and I am a bit disappointed that they did not offer the correct information. (Hi there Elmo, buddy...) Our face book page is not only to keep people engaged in the issue, but also to be used as a tool to respond with rebuttals. Me and one or two other people cannot do it alone, and even if we could, a law change wont be made for three people, at least not unimportant peasants like us.... So thanks to those who follow our page, but we need you folks to help us hold people to the facts! Another thing, by the way, we don't shoot wildlife over feeders, we don't even think feeding wildlife should be legal...

Well John, he/she didn't contact us on our NY Dove Hunting Face book page. If they did, we would delete and block them. And by the way, the biblical reference to doves is not about mourning doves. However, the Turtle Dove, the dove native to that part of the world described in the bible, is found in a few states in the USA and is treated as an INVASIVE SPECIES... If you equate the mourning dove with the turtle dove, you might as well do the same with the NYC pigeon, as they are correctly named "rock doves" not pigeons. Same for about a dozen other doves/pigeons in North America, including some considered game species in addition to the mourning dove, such as the band tailed pigeon and the white wing dove (both natives), and another invasive - the eurasion collared dove. (The white wing & EC Dove are both expanding there range though not reported in the northeast yet) If you are told by an anti-hunter the mourning dove is the dove of piece in the bible, ask them if the rock dove is also the dove of piece.... This persons writing reeks of (other) HSUS propaganda. Doves, and all birds, do NOT reduce the spread of weeds or other seeds. They in fact do exactly the opposite. This is an accepted ecological fact among scientists. The Humane Society has used this 100% erroneous argument in court for over 20 years and in that many states. In their propaganda, they describe the Mourning Dove as the "friend of the farmer... Every thing this guy wrote and every (other) argument that the Humane society has used, is addressed on our face book page. PS: Its also illegal to rescue wildlife or keep them as pets or captive unless you have a special license. In the case of migratory species, like the mourning dove, you will be hit with a dual violation - federal and state...

Product Recalls 2012 Rivers Edge Treestand Safety Recall Rivers Edge have announced a recall that includes Big Foot, Lite Foot and Baby Big Foot hang-on treestands purchased between May 1 2012 and September 1, 2012. Product numbers affected by the recall include RE500, RE501, RE503, RE504, RE506, RE507, RE510 and RE511. PatternmasterRecall issued October 2013, affecting some Benelli/Beretta Mobile tubes manufactured between February 2012 and January 2013. Recalled models are 5001, 5005, 5009, 5236, 5319, 5320, 5441, and 5442. .