mike rossi

Do you think the youth turkey season which started in 2004 has had any impact on turkey populations or the behavior of the birds during the regular season?

No problem, I want you guys to be informed because sooner or later someone from some group will suggest to the legislature an early season as well as full day hunting ( LOL: 4:50 AM to 8:30 PM). The DEC would tell them or want to tell them pretty much what I said here, but the politicians don't care about all that, it is soclo-political decisions that allow them to keep their jobs, not biological ones. If the politicians only hear from the mouth pieces they often get their way. This will give you some factual talking points if / when someone introduces a bill.

You are missing part of the point, they are not cooling off, at least not the older toms. The first gobbling peak during winter flock break-up occurs before hunting reduces the flock size and educates the birds. After flock dispersal the birds are doing more mating than displaying and the gobbling slows down. At some point the hens start laying eggs at a rate of one per day, but they will continue to mate. After about 14 days/eggs they sit on the nest and incubate for 28 days. Incubation does NOT shut off the mating urge of mature toms however many of them are dead or educated and the jakes lose reproductive condition (you don't really want to know what this means, trust me). What incubation does do, is start the older toms gobbling again, unless they are aware of the presence of hunters. They will continue to seek hens and if not pressured, gobble all the way into the month of June. (Since 85% of nests are lost to predators with 30 to 60 percent of the hens attempting to renest, toms have a good chance of finding receptive hens into the month of June and they know it). That being established, lets revisit hunting one or two weeks earlier. If hunting suppresses gobbling, and I can supply you with published research that suggests it does, why wouldn't it suppress it two weeks earlier? From a hunting opportunity perspective; the effect of hunting pressure on gobbling would be the same, it would just occur earlier. From a biological perspective; the birds would be subjected to the issues associated with hunting before most of the mating and flock segregation occurs. The only benefit is the possibility of an increased harvest, mainly consisting of jakes, otherwise it is largely a lose-lose proposition.

I think it was the commotion. Potash is used quite a bit and I never heard of it being a turkey repellent. Lots of salt in it, you would think it would do the opposite and attract them. Turkeys are accustomed to agricultural activity and you would think they would be back sooner. Maybe they just moved a ways off and are side-tracked with their mating business.

Yeah, right... OK, so if you kill one and are stopped while transporting it, you just tell the officer my rancher friend said it was a problem and gave me verbal permission? Tell you what, I got a couple nuisance coyotes, come on over and take care of it. On the way out of here my wife will call the local ECO and when you are stopped tell him I said they were a nuisance and gave you permission.

Not on a national scale, they were recently designated a candidate species for the endangered list.

Your getting into some contentious stuff. Animal populations will go up & down and harvest rates will follow, but in the long term there are lots of birds and the harvest is large. "Why fix what aint broke?" Be careful what you wish for because if you want the legislature to enact political decisions over biological ones, you may get your wish, that should be obvious by now. The current season structure strikes a balance between conservation and maximizing hunting opportunity and is obviously working very well. A few decades ago turkeys were extirpated from most of their historic range. Today populations which can sustain hunting have been restored and turkeys have even been successfully introduced outside of their original range. Spring turkey hunting seasons are timed to minimize interference with reproduction and protect hens by setting the season to coincide with nesting. The logic behind this is that it will allow the majority of mating to occur without disturbance and will reduce the shooting of hens (for whatever reason: stray pellets from flock shooting, poaching, error, or bearded hens which comprise 10 to 20 percent of the turkey population). Fortunately, peak incubation roughly coincides with the second gobbling peak. The first gobbling peak is more active, however, hunting influences gobbling activity, therefore, hunting earlier in the spring certainly would increase harvest, but likely due to more hunting days, rather than greater gobbling activity. In other words all the preseason gobbling would be suppressed if hunters were afield at that time.

They have been known to have no spurs, one spur, or two spurs on one leg.

First: I caution you about using locater calls or turkey calls outside of shooting hours because it may be considered hunting, even without a gun or bow. I know others say otherwise, and maybe they are right, but that is what I was told by a DEC police officer. I set up in areas that I know from experience that birds use, or, when faced with the challenge of a new hunting location, I choose a starting point that allows me to see and hear a good distance. If I hear or see birds, but cant call them in, I wait until they move on, and then go to the area of activity and look for a strategic position for the next hunt. I will keep adjusting my position until I connect or the birds stop using the area. If I don't see or hear birds, it is back to square one with a new starting point each time until I locate an active area. If you keep drawing blanks, don't give up because eventually peak incubation will begin and gobblers will be more active and responsive to calling.

Since hens are about half the size of toms, that might be the best way to guess. 15% or so of hens have beards or otherwise resemble toms, but I never heard of them being as large.

The link below is to the study I referred to in post # 103 which suggests that methane gas does enter wells or water supplies as a direct result of fracking. Following the link is a list of 35 additional studies are taken from the literature review citations on the last page of the study. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/hydrofracking/Osborn%20et%20al%20%20Hydrofracking%202011.pdf 1. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972. 2. Tour JM, Kittrell C, Colvin VL (2010) Green carbon as a bridge to renewable energy. Nature Mater 9:871–874. 3. Kerr RA (2010) Natural gas from shale bursts onto the scene. Science 328:1624–1626. 4. Raupach MR, et al. (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:10288–10293. 5. US Energy Information Administration (2010) Annual Energy Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 (US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC), DOE/EIA- 0383; http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf. 6. US Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Hydraulic Fracturing. (US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC), http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/ class2/hydraulicfracturing/. 7. Kargbo DM, Wilhelm RG, Campbell DJ (2010) Natural gas plays in the Marcellus shale: Challenges and potential opportunities. Environ Sci Technol 44:5679–5684. 8. Revesz KM, Breen KJ, Baldassare AJ, Burruss RC (2010) Carbon and hydrogen isotopic evidence for the origin of combustible gases in water supply wells in north-central Pennsylvania. Appl Geochem 25:1845–1859. 9. Zoback M, Kitasei S, Copithorne B Addressing the environmental risks from shale gas development. Worldwatch Institute Briefing Paper 1 (Worldwatch Inst, Washington, DC), http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Environmental- Risks-Paper-July-2010-FOR-PRINT.pdf. 10. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management (2010) 2009 Year End Workload Report. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, Harrisburg, PA), http://www. dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/2009%20Year%20End%20Report-WEBSITE. pdf. 11. Colborn T, Kwiatkowski C, Schultz K, Bachran M (2010) Natural gas operations from a public health perspective. Hum Ecol Risk Assess, in press. 12. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) Private Water Wells in Pennsylvania. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA), http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/wc/Subjects/SrceProt/well/. 13. Eltschlager KK, Hawkins JW, Ehler WC, Baldassare F (2001) Technical Measures for the Investigation and Mitigation of Fugitive Methane Hazards in Areas of Coal Mining (US Dept of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Pittsburgh). 14. Schoell M (1980) The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from natural gases of various origins. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 44:649–661. 15. Bernard BB (1978) Light hydrocarbons in marine sediments. PhD Dissertation (Texas A&M Univ, College Station, TX). 16. Jenden PD, Drazan DJ, Kaplan IR (1993) Mixing of thermogenic natural gases in northern Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 77:980–998. 17. Laughrey CD, Baldassare FJ (1998) Geochemistry and origin of some natural gases in the Plateau Province Central Appalachian Basin, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 82:317–335. 18. Osborn SG, McIntosh JC (2010) Chemical and isotopic tracers of the contribution of microbial gas in Devonian organic-rich shales and reservoir sandstones, northern Appalachian Basin. Appl Geochem 25:456–471. 19. Repetski JE, Ryder RT, Harper JA, Trippi MH (2006) Thermal maturity patterns in the Ordovician and Devonian of Pennsylvania using conodont color alteration index (CAI) and vitrinite reflectance (%Ro). Northeastern Geology Environmental Sciences 28:266–294. 20. Martini AM, et al. (1998) Genetic and temporal relations between formation waters and biogenic methane: Upper Devonian Antrim Shale, Michigan Basin, USA. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 62:1699–1720. 21. Engelder T, Lash GG, Uzcategui RS (2009) Joint sets that enhance production from Middle and Upper Devonian gas shales of the Appalachian Basin. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 93:857–889. 22. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2011) (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA), Marcellus Shale, http://www.dep.state. pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/new_forms/marcellus/marcellus.htm. 23. New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection (2009) (New York State Dept of Health, Troy, NY), Comments, July 21, 2009, Supplemental Generic Environmental Statement on the Oil and Gas Regulatory Program Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and Hydraulic-Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and other Low Permeability Gas Reservoirs; http://www. riverkeeper.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Riverkeeper-DSGEIS-Comments-Appendix- 3-NYSDOH-Environmental-Radiation-Memo.pdf. 24. Taylor LE (1984) Groundwater Resources of the Upper Susquehanna River Basin, Pennsylvania: Water Resources Report 58. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Resources- Office of Parks and Forestry—Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, Harrisburg, PA) 139. 25. Williams JH, Taylor L, Low D (1998) Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Glaciated Valleys of Bradford, Tioga, and Potter Counties, Pennsylvania: Water Resources Report 68. (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept of Conservation and Natural Resources, Harrisburg, PA) p 89. 26. Kendall C, Coplan TB (2001) Distribution of oxygen-18 and deuterium in river waters across the United States. Hydrol Processes 15:1363–1393. 27. Van Stempvoort D, Maathuis H, Jaworski E, Mayer B, Rich K (2005) Oxidation of fugitive methane in groundwater linked to bacterial sulfate reduction. Ground Water 43:187–199. 28. Taylor SW, Sherwood Lollar B, Wassenaar LI (2000) Bacteriogenic ethane in nearsurface aquifers: Implications for leaking hydrocarbon well bores. Environ Sci Technol 34:4727–4732. 29. Cramer B, Schlomer S, Poelchau HS (2002) Uplift-related hydrocarbon accumulations: the release of natural gas from groundwater. 196 (Geological Society Special Publications, London), 447–455. 30. Geyer AR, Wilshusen JP (1982) Engineering characteristics of the rocks of Pennsylvania; environmental geology supplement to the state geologic map, 1982 Pennsylvania Geological Survey. (Dept of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Management, Harrisburg, PA). 31. Etiope G, Martinelli G (2002) Migration of carrier and trace gases in the geosphere: An overview. Phys Earth Planet Inter 129:185–204. 32. Aravena R, Wassenaar LI (1993) Dissolved organic carbon and methane in a regional confined aquifer, southern Ontario, Canada: Carbon isotope evidence for associated subsurface sources. Appl Geochem 8:483–493. 33. Coleman DD, Liu C, Riley KM (1988) Microbial methane in the shallow Paleozoic sediments and glacial deposits of the Illinois, USA. Chem Geol 71:23–40. 34. Alexander SS, Cakir R, Doden AG, Gold DP, Root SI (2005) Basement depth and related geospatial database for Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Open- File General Geology Report 05-01.0. (Pennsylvania Dept of Conservation and Natural Resources, Middletown, PA), http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/openfile. 35. Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) Online mapping, data access wizard, oil and gas locations. (Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA), http://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?searchType=mapservice&condition= OR&entry=PASDA.

Attempts to regulate this are going to be complicated - medicine is using the same technology to print out organs for patients needing transplants.

People tied to a political agenda wouldn't find the researcher himself credible even if they communicated directly with him. What is posting the research going to accomplish?

There actually is a published study about well contamination that shows it is possible to distinguish between naturally occurring methane and methane that entered the water supply from hydrofracking. Briefly, the naturally occurring methane is called biogenic methane and the methane that hydrofracking extracts is called thermogenic methane. The substances differ chemically by the isotopes - lab tests can discern the difference and thereby determine if the contamination was due to fracking. Interestingly several lawsuits from homeowners with contaminated wells were dismissed because the contamination was from biogenic methane. However, there have been other lawsuits which were upheld because the tests show that the methane was thermogenic, the kind found deep in the shale which only fracking can unbound. Not only is this study published in a science journal, there is a plain language video documentary as well as a number of plain language articles. Also, as is the case with most lawsuits, especially those of public concern, the legal proceedings are also available and can be found online. Does this info satisfy the debate about water or well contamination?

It is a convenient argument for the industry to keep reminding the public that methane naturally occurs in some well water even in the absence of fracking. They are playing this card to the point it should be insulting your intelligence.

As much as hunters throw around the term conservation and conservationists, how many of them do you think know what it is? When it says pulling the trigger is okay, its conservation. When it says it is not okay, its a liberal conspiracy toward a much broader agenda to end all hunting...

People with issues may not be talking about it. Some sources claim that many people have made legal settlements with the industry under the condition they keep their mouths shut. Use your own judgment as to if you believe this or not. However, it is believable if you consider that a member of the NY legislature had testified that PA issued a gag order on medical doctors preventing them from communicating with other physicians, apparently about mysterious illnesses. In other words, Doctor Joe cant compare notes with Doctor Tom in the next county when they both have patients with the same symptoms, live miles a part, and the only common denominator is exposure to fracking. About the well tests: Each industry uses its own secret recipe and is not required to report what chemicals it uses. Researchers have indicated that there are around 600 different chemicals which are useful for the process. That would require testing for every one of the 600 chemicals. I am not a chemist, but I know enough about it that when you mix chemicals, new ones are formed, so how many different combinations can be formed with 600 substances plus whatever is naturally occurring... Chemicals may not change right at mixing either, a change in something like temperature (or pressure, or a bunch of things) can be a catalyst. That would be one heck of a lab test....

The overuse of locater calls and walking around too much, especially when the birds are on the move are other issues.

Science doesn't necessarily "prove" or "disprove," it looks at possibilities. Some people are not comfortable with abstract concepts or possibilities. It is notable that when conclusions support a certain point of view that those same people suddenly become comfortable with science. The available science wont showcase the proverbial nightmare you mention, however, there certainly are a significant number of documented incidents and if you look you will find them as well. Some of those incidents are consistent with scientific predictions (basic research) and some have given rise to new studies (applied research). Who knows what is NOT reported as well, did you ever work on a construction crew, I have... I don't know what you mean by hard science, but I think you mean applied research, something that is often done after a problem happens. This implies that you may be skeptical about basic research which forms predictions or suggests more studies are needed. One important example of applied research is done by the industry itself. They have worked on preventing casing failure for years and are unable to solve it. This is also an example of their own research which they choose not to make public. As Doc said above, there are many issues associated with this industry. If you watched the hearings, including the dec budget hearing, were the topic wasn't really relevant, the public and the legislature want many issues studied specifically. The GEIS is general or generic. The politicians were asking about specific studies, one example being the impact on dairy cows. The dec commissioner attempted to explain the generic nature of this eis and it seemed to go over everyone's head- because they are lawyers - not scientists and they didn't do enough homework. But their points are still valid,, there is a wide range of possible impacts that can only be evaluated with their own eis. That is a lot of basic research, and basic research is not popular with the right - wing, or in this case, Obama and Cuomo, the best friends of the industry. LOL - I would agree that preemptive, basic research (on hydrofracking) is a waste of money, but not for the same reasons, my reason being that I am already convinced this industry should not be allowed to move forward. If I had links off hand I would post them for you, but I don't. Since this industry has such a broad range of potential impacts, there are a variety of science journals you can search: Geology, human health, ecology, chemistry, hydrology, agriculture, the list goes on and on.

New York City elementary school cafeteria is one of the first in the nation to go meatless. Students at P.S. 244 , the Active Learning Elementary School, are being treated to eclectic fare, including black bean and cheese quesadillas, falafel and tofu in an Asian sesame sauce. “It’s been a really great response from the kids, but they also understand it’s about what is the healthiest option for them,” principal Bob Groff told ABCNews.com. “Because we teach them throughout our curriculum to make healthy choices, they understand what is happening and believe in what we’re doing too.” When the school opened in 2008, they started serving vegetarian meals three days a week. The campus became a vegetarian test kitchen for the city, Groff said. “We then started to try out recipes with small groups of students, see what they liked, see what they didn’t like,” he said. The recipes were a hit, Groff said, prompting the school to expand its meat-free meals to four days a week and then adopting a 100 percent vegetarian kitchen in January. “The big thing I would like people to know is, this isn’t just about a vegetarian menu,” Groff said. ”It’s about living a healthy lifestyle and educating students on what options are out there.” All meals have to adhere to USDA standards, he said, making sure students get plenty of nutrients, including protein, for their growing bodies. That means nutrient-dense foods such as chickpeas, kidney beans and tofu. If the herbivore-friendly grub doesn’t suit students, Groff said they’re always welcome to pack their lunch, including meat. The school operates on an application and lottery system, meaning it’s not zoned to a particular neighborhood. It serves 400 students from pre-kindergarten through grade three.

Posting everything that is out there would be a full time job. It is up to the individual to seek out information and use their own judgement. The most to be hoped for is that anyone who has not paid attention to this issue begins to do so and draws their own conclusions. As far as the quality of information, of course that is important. Activists on both sides embellish science toward their agenda. That is why you look at the science, not the propaganda. If the public majority cannot distinguish between political debate and scientific debate, it is much less likely they can distinguish between junk science/ pseudo science and science. Good science is published in peer-review scientific journals. I doubt anybody legitimate is suggesting this industry is not risky. The grey area would be whether or not the risks are manageable or can be successfully mitigated. The second area of contention would be whether the risks after mitigation response would be "worth it". The public has a right to weigh the benefits to risks and express their opinions to the DEC and EPA whether they feel it is "worth it" or not. If it was not for the activism of anti-frackers; the industry would likely have moved forward without the public even knowing what was going on.

There may be small game around that you were unaware of. The past year I have heard hunters ask about mourning doves in NY, as well as snipe, woodcock, and grouse. The best time to listen for these birds is during spring turkey season, because they are mating as the turkeys are. A matter of fact, snipe sound a little bit like a hen turkey. Click on these links to hear the calls or wing sounds. Snipe: http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/136406 http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/94350 Grouse: http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/48907 Woodcock: http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/100723 Dove: http://macaulaylibrary.org/audio/22930

I have to take issue with the comment in post 79 about which camp is driving politics. We need to know the difference between scientific debate and political debate. Anytime economics and jobs are introduced into a discussion it becomes a political debate.