mike rossi

Only number 5, regarding skunks, does not say in express terms occupant, close relative, leasee or farm employee with written permission. Every other animal on there does. I would still double check this with a ECO lieutenant before I would apply it to skunks ...

I read that again I think you are right about occupy OR cultivate. Not sure about your second sentence though. Doesn't that sound like written permission can only be given to a farm employee? I think it does and I am pretty sure that legally authorizing a non employee requires a nuisance permit, unless that person is a licensed wildlife control operator.

Here are some guesses: Few people hunt them, there is little/no market for their fur, and hibernation protects them part of the year. Not sure, just another guess, maybe they cache food underground and stay there with their young until they can forage on their own.

On the other hand, one of Cuomo's top officials, and former vice president Dick Cheney, have financial ties to the industry as does someone in PA's government.. Cheney served as the CEO of Haliburiton Energy while he was VP. His company invented fracking and while VP he used his power to exempt fracking from the Clean Air / Water Acts. Politicians cant even be trusted by their own wives, Clinton, Spitzer, Arnold, and who knows how many others. What the hell should I trust them for?

Fair enough, that is my first guess, however if you read the entire regulation the language becomes ambiguous. Still doesn't mean you can shoot coyotes or other protected wildlife out of season ... >>> You must live on the property. >>> If you do not occupy the land, it must be agriculture land, and you must be the owner or immediate family member, leasee or employee with WRITTEN PERMISSION. >>> Otherwise you must either have a nuisance wildlife trapping license or a nuisance permit must be issued by the DEC. >>> Last but not least, the animal must actually be a nuisance

Before we talk about this law don't divert the fact that people posted very clearly that they were in favor of poaching coyotes. Regarding the law: Part of the law is not abundantly clear (below in italics) and begs the question whether or not it only applies to agricultural land or to any occupied land? "Owners and lessees and members of their immediate families actually occupying or cultivating lands, and persons authorized in writing and actually employed by them in cultivating such lands" Taking this one step further, even if this regulation applies to both agriculture and OCCUPIED non agriculture lands, I do not see anything in this law which authorizes anybody other than a landowner or his employee or tenant to take protected nuisance wildlife out of season without a permit or nuisance wildlife trapper license. FYI: a regular fur trapping license is not the same as a nuisance wildlife trapping license and requires a different course as well. The regulations for fur trapping and NWT also differ.

I am not sure exactly when, I would say around the time the grey wolf restoration controversy heated up in the Rocky Mountain and Great Lakes regions. But like you said, livestock ranchers generally support predator control. To be fair, I have met many farmers and ranchers who are very conservation minded and accept some lose as the price of doing business out in the country. Some of these farmers and ranchers also set aside many acres for habitat instead of planting or grazing. Heck, some grain farmers have problems with deer depredation and want the coyotes to knock the fawns down. One guy told me he hated big bucks the worst because when they feed they take out rows of corn and beans with their racks...

The endorsement of poaching is not detrimental to hunting? Lets stop wiggling out here: several people here clearly said they believe in shooting coyotes out of season. Others said they want them extinct. Others are playing the predator control card. The public generally supports hunting when it is for food. Most of the same public are fine with harvesting animals for fur. And many of them understand why it is a sport and don't get unglued because some people have fun hunting. But the public at large does not support poaching, predator control, and especially - - wiping out all the coyotes or other species. Non hunters who are exposed to hunters with those attitudes will not support hunting. Make all the economic arguments you want, all the ecological services arguments, all the agricultural arguments, show them photos of carcasses scavenged by animals and reports of rabies incidents and it will not matter because we lost their support. Since we are a minority we need their support.

never mind.

Has anybody who has already formed opinions on this taken a drive around where they frack in PA? I have and its not impressive... Note the pheasant on the dash. Going to be impossible trying to hear those gobblers with those flares roaring. http://youtu.be/KX7piCD_nWw

Bet they wish there was some red necks there with bushmasters....

I think many attorneys will get into this. Violating the constituition has little defense and lawyers love doing slam dunks. It is also a felony to block someones second amendment rights outside the law. Why do you think the occasional sheriff is threatening not to enforce these new laws - LOL, its not for the good of the people, its to cover their own liability. They will enforce if the screws are put to them, but then they can claim they were compelled... As far as getting money to Tresmond, this would be at the grassroots level, not at the NRA level. Someone would have to set up a website or facebook with a pay pal account. Don't look at me , are you up for it?

http://youtu.be/iVut8_gRRbo

Missing the posts that say they don't care if it is not legal?

Imagine if every gun owner gave Tresmond Law Firm one dollar to pursue this...

No, and my reasoning why it is not, is because this not a situation were sport hunting was opposed by an organization and that same organization proposes this as an alternative. I wasn't aware that local hunters are not allowed to take these animals. If that is in fact the case, there may be some obscure reason, such as with feral swine in PA where you cant take feral pigs in townships undertaking a state government trapping effort. The justification was that more swine could be removed by trapping if the herds are not disturbed.

Removal of grazing mammals that destroy endangered bird habitat to resume April 9, 2013 Honolulu, HI — Yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaiʻi issued an order clearing the way for the State of Hawaiʻi Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to resume aerial hunts to remove grazing mammals from the last forest habitat of the critically endangered palila bird (Loxioides bailleui) atop Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaiʻi. Fewer than 2,200 palila are left. (FWS) Read the Court’s order. Earthjustice, representing the Hawaiʻi Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Hawaiʻi Audubon Society and the National Audubon Society, has been in court since 1978 to protect the palila from feral sheep and goats and mouflon sheep that ravage the māmane-naio forest on which the palila depends. In a series of orders beginning in 1979, the Court found that, to prevent the bird’s extinction, DLNR must permanently remove the mammals from the palila’s designated critical habitat through all necessary means, including aerial hunts. DLNR had suspended the hunts following passage of a Hawaiʻi County ordinance in July 2012 that sought to ban them. The Court held that, under the U.S. Constitution, the federal Endangered Species Act trumps the county law. “There is universal agreement among Hawaiʻi forest bird experts that sheep and goats are the number one threat to the palila’s survival,” said Linda Paul, President of the Hawaiʻi Audubon Society. “DLNR needs to take immediate, aggressive steps to remove these mammals, or we risk losing the palila forever.” The population of the palila, a Hawaiian honeycreeper, has declined 66 percent decline in the past decade, with fewer than 2,200 birds left. Introduced sheep and goats browse the endemic māmane (Sophora chysophylla) tree, whose seeds comprise about 90 percent of the palila’s diet. Due mainly to habitat destruction by grazing mammals, the range of the palila has contracted to only about 5 percent of its historical size. “We reached a court-ordered agreement with DLNR in 1998 that a minimum of two aerial hunts per year were needed if we were to have any chance of removing sheep and goats from Mauna Kea,” explained Earthjustice attorney David Henkin. “DLNR should not have suspended those hunts without talking to us and the Court first. That decision really set back efforts to save the palila, but hopefully we can get back on track.” Earthjustice did not learn until February 2013 that DLNR had unilaterally suspended the aerial hunts the prior year. Earthjustice then contacted DLNR and prodded it to return to Court to resolve concerns that state employees and contractors conducting the hunts might be subject to County prosecution. DLNR and Earthjustice, representing the conservation groups, jointly asked the Court to rule that the County ordinance did not prohibit the court-ordered efforts to protect palila. With the Court’s ruling that federal law preempts application of the County ordinance, DLNR intends to resume aerial hunts by the end of April 2013. “In the past, removal efforts were hampered because there was no way to keep sheep and goats from migrating back into the palila’s critical habitat once the helicopters left,” said Robert Harris, Director of the Hawaiʻi Chapter of the Sierra Club. “We went back to court in 2009 to get DLNR to live up to its promise to build a mouflon-proof fence to protect palila critical habitat and now there are nearly 24 miles of fencing, cutting off the main migration routes. Thus, after more than three decades of effort, with the resumption of aerial hunts, DLNR can finally comply with the court orders to remove the sheep and goats that have been threatening the palila’s survival.” Contact: David Henkin, Earthjustice, (808) 599-2436, ext. 6614

You got this voted up, congrats. Its like being safe with a gun, you have to think abstractly. Many people cannot, that's why in the past 48 hours a 5 year old shot a middle aged women and in a separate incident a 4 year old shot a 6 year old. You have to recognize the possibilities and coordinate your actions toward those possibilities... There are very strong possibilities minors will now or in the future read what you post... It wasn't the guns or the children that caused these deaths, it was the negligence of overconfident adults who due to that cockiness where unable to think about the possibilities...

Honestly, I tried to delete the post, because I realized the show has more to it.

Thanks for the info...

I would write to the NY Attorney general for your answer and I would include with your questions a suggestion that lawmakers address these issues when crafting the new laws. I would also send either separate letters or CCs to members of the assembly & senate, and maybe even Coumo's office with the same message.

Final Position Statement Confinement of Wild Ungulates within High Fences1 Demand for hunting and the sale of live wild ungulates (hoofed mammals) and their products has promoted the growth of an industry that raises wild native and exotic ungulates in captivity, within managed properties. High (avg. 2.4 m) fences are used to attempt to control the movement of animals to improve the management of captive wildlife and their habitat, reduce immigration of non-managed animals, and as a deterrent to poaching. Biological issues relating to confined wild ungulates include behavioral effects of enclosed animals, diseases associated with confinement and shipping, genetic effects of confinement and transport from natural ranges, habitat effects, effects on nontarget species, and effects on native species and habitats outside of the fence. Ecological health within fenced habitats, however, may increase when improved effectiveness of population control is combined with proper captive wildlife and habitat management. Social issues related to confined ungulates include cultural and legal issues of public versus private ownership of wildlife resources, hunter ethics, public perception of hunting, commercialization, and domestication of wild animals, and ecological stewardship. The use of high fences to confine ungulates may have specific and legitimate uses in wildlife management and research, but it also carries the potential for significant adverse impacts. The policy of The Wildlife Society with respect to ungulate confinement is to: 1. Recognize the serious biological (diseases, genetic effects, etc.) and social (public versus private ownership of wildlife, ethics) issues associated with confinement of wild ungulates. 2. Oppose any additional conversion of the public's native wildlife to private ownership via high-fenced enclosures. 3. Oppose high-fenced enclosures, regardless of size, if they exclude free-ranging native wildlife from critical seasonal habitats or migration routes, or jeopardize the sustainability of free-ranging native wildlife. 4. Support regulations and enforcement to prevent escapes of confined animals and facilitate recovery in the event of an escape. 5. Support state and provincial wildlife agencies as the primary regulatory authority over native North American ungulates, including those confined by high fences. State and provincial wildlife agencies should work cooperatively with other state, provincial, and federal agricultural, wildlife, and health agencies as well as hunting groups, conservation organizations, private landowners, and managers to reduce the potential for problems such as disease transmission and genetic exchange among native wildlife and exotic species. Excellence in Wildlife Stewardship Through Science and Education 6. Support the regulation of captive exotic ungulates by state and provincial wildlife agencies. 7. Encourage anyone using a high fence to confine ungulates to thoroughly analyze and acknowledge potential impacts to native free-ranging wildlife species and commit to minimizing any such risks This requires a well-coordinated effort of state, provincial, and federal agencies, hunting groups, conservation organizations, private landowners, and managers. 8. For all ungulates confined by high fences, encourage management at or below natural carrying capacity in a manner that prevents inbreeding, diseases, habitat degradation, and effects on non-target species. 9. Encourage authorized agencies to collaborate with interested parties on funding and development of systems for detecting and monitoring wildlife diseases within enclosed and free-ranging native and exotic ungulate populations. 10. Support a moratorium on the construction of high-fenced facilities and any shipment of live cervids until live-animal diagnostic tests are available for detecting and monitoring important infectious diseases. 11. Oppose the use of funds generated from traditional sources (recreational licenses, tags, and other fees) for confined-ungulate inspections and regulatory programs. 1Refer to the Technical Report on Confinement of Wild Ungulates within High Fences (#02-3) for the scientific rationale on which this position description is based. http://wildlife.org/documents/technical-reviews/docs/UngulateConfinement02-3.pdf Approved by Council September 2009. Expires September 2014.

We wont fix it here. Its up to each of us to educate elected officials, call them up, ask to speak to an aide. Don't attack them, simply tell them you believe they are misinformed and I would like to share your knowledge or offer another viewpoint, do you have five minutes to speak with me?

Would you like 37 pages why it might be some of your business?

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- A Wyoming woman is behind bars after authorities say she intentionally hit three women with her car in a bar parking lot. Twenty-year-old Julia Big Crow of Cheyenne was being held at the Laramie County jail Wednesday on aggravated assault charges. The investigation is still under way, but police spokesman Dan Long says police so far believe Big Crow purposely hit the women early Sunday outside Goofy's bar. Police say Big Crow had been involved in an altercation in the bar before that. The women who were struck didn't suffer life-threatening injuries. Jail records didn't indicate which lawyer is representing Big Crow.