mike rossi

Never mind.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A high-ranking Democratic New York State senator was arrested on Tuesday and charged with trying to buy a place on the Republican ticket in the city's next mayoral race, an effort that prosecutors said was part of a wide-ranging bribery scandal and reflected pervasive corruption in New York politics. Five other politicians, all Republicans, were also arrested and charged with collectively accepting more than $100,000 in bribes in meetings in parked cars, hotel rooms and state offices, according to court papers. Authorities described the scheme - potentially one of the biggest political scandals to hit New York in years - as an attempt to game the city's first wide-open mayoral election in more than a decade. New York will choose a new mayor in November, before Michael Bloomberg's third term comes wraps up at year's end. The charges center on State Senator Malcolm Smith, a Democrat from Queens, who prosecutors said made payments to a city councilman to set up meetings with top New York Republicans to assist in getting him on the mayoral ballot. Smith and the councilman, Daniel Halloran, a Republican from Queens, were among the six politicians arrested on Tuesday morning in connection to the bribery scandal. Charges against the six include bribery, extortion, and wire and mail fraud. "From time to time the question arises, how common is corruption in New York?" said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara at a late-morning press conference. "Based on the cases that we have brought and continue to bring, it seems downright pervasive." Recent years have seen another high-ranking New York state Senator, Democrat Pedro Espada Jr., convicted of stealing more than $600,000 from Soundview HealthCare Center, a partly federally funded company he worked at; and a pay-for-play scandal at the state's pension fund that saw the state comptroller resign and serve 21 months in prison. Authorities arrested four other Republicans: Queens County Republican Party Vice Chairman Vincent Tabone, Bronx County Republican Party Chairman Joseph Savino, Spring Valley Mayor Noramie Jasmin and Spring Valley Deputy Mayor Joseph Desmaret. Smith's lawyer, Gerald Shargel, defended his client but said he had not yet fully reviewed the charges. "Malcolm Smith is a dedicated public servant who has served ... his constituents in an exemplary fashion," Shargel said. Representatives of the other five officials all either declined to comment or did not respond to phone calls on Tuesday morning. 'WHAT GREASES THE WHEELS' The scandal, uncovered by FBI agents working with an undercover investigator and a cooperating witness, allegedly involved a series of secret meetings in restaurants, hotels and Smith's Senate office in Albany, New York in which bribes were discussed or money exchanged. Court documents released on Tuesday showed the people alternating between brazen and cautious behavior as they solicited and received bribes. At a September meeting at a Manhattan restaurant at which he received $7,500 in cash, City Councilman Halloran told a confidential witness working with the FBI, "Money is what greases the wheels -- good, bad or indifferent." At other times they were warier. During a February meeting with an undercover FBI agent he believed to be a real estate developer, Queens Republican official Tabone frisked the agent to check for a recording device. He was unsuccessful and the conversation was recorded anyway. Prosecutors said that two of the politicians charged in the scheme - Tabone and Savino - received a total of $40,000 in bribes for promising to support Smith. Halloran, the Queens Councilman, was said to have gotten $20,500 for setting up a meeting with people Smith believed were supporters but were in fact the cooperating witness and an undercover FBI agent. Two of the other politicians arrested on Tuesday, Jasmin and Desmaret, were charged for their role in a related bribery incident involving a proposed real estate project in Spring Valley, a suburban town located about 35 miles north of New York City. MAYORAL RACE Smith's motivation was winning a spot on the ballot as a Republican mayoral contender, since that primary is seen as considerably less competitive than the Democratic contest in liberal New York. In 2001, billionaire Michael Bloomberg - a lifelong Democrat - won the right to run for mayor as a Republican, though he later abandoned his party affiliation altogether. As Bloomberg prepares to leave City Hall after three terms in office, a handful of Democrats, including Smith, have sought Republican support for their candidacies. The most prominent contenders for mayor include City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, former Comptroller Bill Thompson, current Comptroller John Liu and former Metropolitan Transportation Authority Chairman Joseph Lhota. To be listed on the ballot of the other political party, a New York politician must win the approval of the party chairman in at least three of the city's five counties. In one January meeting, Smith, who has represented his eastern Queens district since 2000, and the unnamed cooperating witness discussed the cost of the bribes, prosecutors said. "It's worth it as long as they're going to do it," Smith said, according to court papers released on Tuesday. "He can't tell you he's going to do it and then doesn't do it ... You know, don't waste a pretty penny." Halloran helped him in hopes of securing a position as a deputy police commissioner or deputy mayor in a potential Smith administration, U.S. Attorney Bharara, said. The chairman of the state Republican party, Ed Cox, called the arrests "deeply concerning." "The integrity of the electoral process for the voters of New York City must be preserved," Cox said in a statement.

Ruffed Grouse Society 451 McCormick Road Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108 1-888-JOIN-RGS

http://news.yahoo.com/4-hurt-crash-attack-california-231717422.html

You forgot about Nicolas Tesla, from Long Island. He invented the wireless technology we use today 100 years ago or whatever it was. Problem was, he invented it to produce FREE energy. The capitalists didn't like that too much and did a number on him... Look it up...

Doc, I did not click on the link so I don't know what this is about, but there is something brewing in Colorado with no connection to gun control. Colorado hands out 15% of its big game tags to landowners. This has evolved into a situation where landowners are selling these tags for about any price they want. Each permit does not restrict the hunter to some specific private land, the permit is good over the entire unit, including public lands. The landowner doesn't even have to allow access to his land. Colorado has a senate bill pending right now for changes. Its my understanding that although the original program was Colorado F&G's idea, that lobbying from the agriculture community has expanded the Colorado landowner voucher program as I described. In other words, special interest lobbying from the agriculture community is controlling Colorado fish & game department's policy on this program by influencing politicians. Once more , conservation is politicized... It is also interesting, although this issue can have some biological aspects, it is largely a social issue - that shows that sometimes even social issues are not immune to bad policy pushed through a political arena. I think Colorado f&g can more fairly distribute permits than Colorado legislature. If part of this boycott is because of this, that part is misdirected.

He probably knew it was directed at me... I am not opposing or supporting AR or crossbows, so this isn't about what falls lock step with me. What prompted me was Sits in Trees made a comment about who decides the fate of regulations and came close to discouraging anyone from trying to influence outcomes. Then I responded to Belo about the same post once or twice. Not sure that qualifies as "complaining". Some of you think it is funny to play dumb and prolong discussions, but you do that at the expense of confusing novices or 13 year old youths. Its pretty frustrating when trying to put things into the proper perspective for people and someone convolutes the issue even more. Those can have fun for a while, because I won't be doing this forever. Hopefully I will inspire some of the younger & smarter and they will break the cycle. I

NAFA-ADK can you or someone scan that memo and post it?

Not authority figures and not subject-matter authorities either.

Correct, they don't like turtles.... Stake holder participation, particularly through the county federations and the NYSCC holds to the ideology of those on the top of the heap. Those people have not put conservation first and don't really even understand conservation. Many are old and set in their ways and wont benefit from anything which takes a moderate or long time to produce results, one example being habitat management. Since it wont benefit them- they fight against it and for nepotistic legislation. The younger leaders and member constituency have historically been sheep, that is followers, not critical thinkers or leaders. The Outdoor Writers Association- there is the national OWA and the NYOWA and these organizations act like an electrical circuit with a regulator. They regulate what information or messages they want to reach the sporting community. That is how they achieve consensus at the club or county federation level. Once they have that consensus, they can move forward with recommendations to the legislature which they claim are "wise" and backed by thousands of voting sportsmen who make up their member constituency.

About your statement: "Especially when a new guy comes in and starts spouting stupid crap that others start believing". But if the new guy happens to agree with someone's or some organization's agenda, then everything he says is dead on...

Nationally, an increase in sales in 2012 from 2011 is encouraging, but it doesn't necessarily mean the long term trend is reversing. This increase was mainly deer licenses, other licenses still dropped.

And the kill will go up with it. That may mean eventually an entirely different bag limit structure for all the other deer seasons, including buck firearm. That will be another saga...

Unless one is very careless, it is obvious that the NYB is anti-crossbow. That is one of their important objectives , as a matter of fact I believe they have an anti cross bow fund? So if you mean that a NYB member should know his organization is anti cross bow, I agree with you. But that is not my point and you are mischaracterizing what I said, although correct, it was a generalization... The county federations and the NYSCC do not collectively voice the NYB's or every organization's stance, concerns, or interests. They certainly are not a voice for unaffiliated individuals... Yet these organizations exercise a fair amount of control over the DEC by influencing the legislature. Stakeholder participation is consistent with the North American Conservation Plan, particularly on social issues. However that concept is heavily abused to the point which best policies are not always implemented and/or democracy is avoided. What compounds this is a lack of conservation ethic or a good enough understanding of conservation by influential people in the sporting community. It is further compounded by the Outdoor Writers Association which publishes material more redundant than this thread. Then it is compounded again, by selfishness and age. The leadership is self serving and old. Planting oaks which may not bare mast for thirty years isn't to exciting to the 50, 60 or 70 year old know-it-all who wont be around or able to hunt when habitat projects begin to bare fruit (pun intended).

Anything related to hunting policy can be molded by a public opinion battle and it often is. However sometimes organizations have a bigger voice, even if their member constituency disagrees with the leadership. Personally, this issue doesn't matter to me and I can't relate to the passion on both sides of the fence on this one. However, your comment compels me to remind everyone that public opinion does count, although true, as you alluded, that count is often misaligned by organizations. Also keep in mind that when the issue is biological rather than social, it should not be a public opinion battle and should be left up to ecologists (trying to wean you all off of biologist) rather than majority opinion influencing the legislature and governor to pass & sign bills. Open & transparent government including public comment and stakeholder input is a good thing, particularly on social dimensions, but it has become abused and that abuse has politicized conservation.

On the evening of March 5, nine agents from the California Department of Justice, wearing bulletproof vests and carrying Glock pistols, assembled outside a ranch-style house in a Los Angeles suburb. They were preparing to confiscate weapons from a gun owner who’d recently lost the right to possess firearms after spending two days in a psychiatric hospital. They knocked on the door and asked to come in. These touchy encounters sometimes end in anger and, occasionally, handcuffs. This time, the agents came out peacefully with three guns. Then it was on to the next stop on the list for that night. California is the only state that takes legally obtained weapons away from citizens who are no longer supposed to have them. There are almost 20,000 such gun owners, state records show, including convicted felons, people under domestic violence restraining orders, or those deemed mentally unstable. “What do we do about the guns that are already in the hands of persons who, by law, are considered too dangerous to possess them?” California Attorney General Kamala Harris wrote to Vice President Biden after the shootings in Newtown, Conn. She recommended that Biden, heading a White House review of gun policy, look to California as a model. Nationwide, as many as 200,000 people have lost their gun rights but keep their weapons, says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis. Many states lack the ability to confiscate firearms because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most sales to go through a licensed dealer and be reported. “Very, very few states have an archive of firearm owners like we have,” says Wintemute, who helped set up the program. California’s been going after guns since 2007. Last year agents seized about 2,000 weapons, 117,000 rounds of ammunition, and 11,000 high-capacity magazines, according to state data. The list of those no longer eligible to keep weapons is compiled by matching files on almost 1 million gun owners with databases of new criminal records and involuntary mental health commitments. About 15 to 20 names are added each day, the attorney general’s office says. Showing up at people’s homes and demanding their guns is about as fun as it sounds. A felony conviction or restraining order is flagged as a “disqualifying event” in California’s database, but it isn’t sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, says John Marsh, a supervising agent who coordinates the seizures. So the agents—there are 33 statewide—often must talk their way into a residence to look for weapons. “We’re not contacting anybody who can legally own a gun,” says Marsh, who never knows what to expect when he approaches someone’s door. “I got called the antichrist the other day. Every conspiracy theory you’ve heard of, take that times 10.” During the March 5 outing, the agents visited a home in Fontana, in San Bernardino County. They were looking for a gun owner with a criminal record for running a prostitution business, according to the attorney general’s office. Marsh says that while the woman appeared to be home, she didn’t come to the door. Without a warrant, the team left empty-handed. They had better luck at the ranch house in nearby Upland, where they seized the three guns from the home of a woman who’d been hospitalized for mental illness. One gun was registered to her, two to her husband. “The prohibited person can’t have access to a firearm,” regardless of who the registered owner is, says Michelle Gregory, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office. Although violating gun ownership laws is a felony, the agents don’t usually arrest people whose weapons they confiscate unless they’re convicted felons, who are prohibited from buying, receiving, owning, or possessing a firearm, Gregory says. The program has met little resistance from gun groups, which have pressed state and federal lawmakers to enforce existing gun control laws instead of writing new ones. “We think that crime control instead of gun control is absolutely the way to go,” says Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. His only complaint is how the law is funded. On March 7, California’s senate voted to expand the seizure program using $24 million from fees that gun dealers charge buyers for background checks. “This program has a benefit to the entire public,” Paredes says, “and therefore the entire public should be paying.” The bottom line: In 2012, California seized 2,000 guns and 117,000 rounds of ammunition from people who’d lost their right to own firearms.

Government holding onto Conservation Funds in 2013 Note: Payments into Trust Funds such as the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds are exempt from sequestration, however, payments out of these Trust Funds are not. According to the latest figures released from the White House, this will result in withholdings of approximately $27 million from Wildlife Restoration, $19 million from Sport Fish Restoration, and $6 million from Boating Safety in 2013. That is not good, but I am not sure if any state will even feel it split 50 ways, as NYs appropriations alone is around $20 million. And, if NY doesn’t kiss & make up with the FWS, that $20 Mill might go right back into the hat! Also note: Thanks to the Outdoor Writers Association, most sportsmen are only aware of the federal conservation funds known as PR and DJ funds, which are actually wildlife restoration and sport fish and boating restoration funds. However, as listed below, there actually is a myriad of federal conservation funds. To add insult to injury, generally speaking, most of the non-shooting conservationists are better versed in these programs than sportsmen. If that includes you, thank your info sources… Although ‘sequestration’ in the conservation world usually means carbon sequestration, the latest impacts to wildlife may actually be from the federal government’s budget sequestration. The Budget Control Act language of 2011 was intended to be a last ditch effort to force compromise in a divided Congress, but when an agreed upon budget was not reached by March 1, 2013, the budget sequestration cuts outlined in the Act [Pub. L. 112-25] were automatically enacted. In an attempt to lower the federal deficit by $85 billion ($42.667 billion in non-defense spending) through 10 years of austerity, the bill starts with an average of 5 percent cuts in non-defense spending (5 percent discretionary, 5.1 percent mandatory) and defense spending cuts between 5 and 7.8 percent. However, since these cuts must be achieved by September 30 of this year, the effective reductions will actually be around 13 percent for non-exempt defense programs and 9 percent for non-exempt non-defense programs, because the cuts are not spread evenly over all 12 months. Today the Continuing Resolution (CR) was passed to fund the rest of fiscal year 2013, locking in the current sequester cuts for the remainder of the year. Within the conservation realm, cuts to the National Park Service have been most widely publicized. On March 8, 2013, the National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis released a memo to his employees that “900 permanent positions will not be filled … [and] we will hire over 1,000 less seasonal employees this year.” The possible closure or reduced hours of national parks, as well as the impact to the small businesses surrounding the parks has been well covered by organizations such as the National Wildlife Federation, Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, and National Parks Conservation Association. Similarly, national wildlife refuges may be forced to limit public access and recreational opportunities by closing some refuges and visitor centers. The funds for refuges are included in resource management cuts totaling $64 million. Refuges will also be hit by cuts to “construction” ($5 million) that include habitat restoration and erosion control activities, road, building, and visitor services on refuges, and $1 million in cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. On March 2, the White House Office of Management and Budget released a report detailing how much will be cut from each agency. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $127 million$64 million from Resource Management $5 million from Construction $1 million from Multinational Species Conservation Fund $21 million from Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration $1 million from National Wildlife Refuge Fund $2 million from Migratory Bird Conservation Account $2 million from Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation $2 million from North American Wetlands Conservation Fund $3 million from State Wildlife Grants $23 million from Sport Fish Restoration U.S. Forest Service (USFS): $298 million Department of Defense: $526 Million $94 million from Department of Defense environmental restoration accounts $26 million from Environmental Restoration (formerly Used Defense Sites) $394 million from Defense Environmental Cleanup $12 million from Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup Bureau of Land Management: $75 million Natural Resources Conservation Service: $223 million National Park Service: $153 million Environmental Protection Agency: $472 million $125 million from USFS Wildland Fire Management $38 million from the Department of the Interior’s Wildland Fire Management Fire Management: $163 million States will also be affected, as funds that come from the federal government are cut. View an interactive map for information on your state (click on the environmental protection tab). Sources: ABC News (March 13, 2013), American Institute of Biological Sciences (March 11, 2013), Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Federal Budget Sequestration Fact Sheet, CARE –Fiscal Cliff and Wildlife (2012), Environment News Service (March 1, 2013), Fairfax News (March 7, 2013), National Geographic News (Feb. 28, 2013), National Wildlife Federation, Conservation Impacts of the Fiscal Cliff, NorthJersey.com News (March 4, 2013), Sequester could hurt NJ’s environment, NPSretirees.org, OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Sequestration For Fiscal Year 2013, USFWS 2013 Budget

So it matters to the Canadians that the money-huggers are exporting to china instead of the USA? Exporting is exporting... Canadians were sold on domestic energy independence and lower prices for themselves, the same sales pitch the USA is getting. When you export, you sell more... When you sell more, the price goes up, not down Obama wants domestic energy, no surprise he didnt want the canadian pipeline. He particularly champions hydrofracking for natural gas. He has no problem with the gas pipeline they are building right now down the east coast.

Do you know that in the US, including NY, that China has already started buying both the leases and the US energy companies? In Canada, residents got suckered into expecting lower natural gas prices, but the Canadian goverment started exporting their "domestic" natural gas to India and China. That of course raised the demand, which raises the price for Canadians.

The industry has also been pandering to sportsmen. For several years, PA allowed this industry on it's state game lands (SGL) which are the equivelent of New York's WMAs. This full page ad surfaced yesterday, same day they evacuated those people. Alan Probst, host of Wild Pennsylvania endorses Cabot Oil & Gas and states the industry benefits hunting, trapping, fishing, and wildlife. Below is an advertisement by Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, this week in Mulligan’s shopping guide distributed in what is known as “Gasland”, north central PA and south central NY. Can natural gas benefit wildlife? “Absolutely!” says the host of Wild Pennsylvania with Alan Probst. An avid outdoorsman and award-winning TV producer, Alan has shared his love of hunting, trapping, and fishing for over a decade, producing a variety of outdoors and sportsman programming for local, regional, and national television. Alan says when companies like Cabot work with landowners to return drill sites to their natural states, they can be designed and reseeded in a way that provides animals with a more attractive habitat. “I make my living from the outdoors” says Allen. “It’s good to know we can enjoy the economic benefits offered by natural gas, while actually improving living conditions for the region’s wildlife.”

Yup, sounds real safe to me. If they ban their default method in NY, they still got propane fracking. In Proping , instead of millions of gallons of pressurized water loaded with 600 chemicals; they just use one gas to harvest another gas ... Instead of blowing up the underground rock with a pressurized chemical cocktail, they let the propane expand (explode?) underground. Earthquake faults, no problem with either method, according the the industry .. You know, like dude , they like got it all under control dude,...

WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP — Trouble at a natural gas drilling site in Wyoming County has forced seven families from their homes and crews are worried about a possible explosion. Gas workers are trying to fix a drill on a well pad of Keiserville Road in Washington Towhship after thousands of gallons of fracking fluid spilled out onto the pad. The Department of Environmental Protection tells us a malfunction on the drill going into the well caused the spill. DEP officials said that at one point, about 800 gallons of fluid per minute were flowing out. They managed to slow the rate of fluid flowing but still call it a significant spill. DEP said they secured 5,400 barrels of fluid. Authorities said a drill became stuck in the well and pressure building up behind caused the spill and creates the potential for an explosion. They are trying to use a crane to remove the drill and cap the well. Emergency management officials said there is no danger to the public from an explosion and the process of capping the well is underway. E.M.A. officials evacuated four homes and three others left voluntarily. More details on video: http://wyomingcounty.wnep.com/news/news/176153-fracking-fluid-leak-wyoming-county

Two of the vitims were corrections officers, one was retired. Did anything surface about them being armed?

What about people who cant defend themselves? Guns were invented in the first place to level the playing field between people and people or a person and an animal he wants to eat. There are alot of bad people out there, but there are more good people. If most of the good people were armed, the non-suicidal criminals would be discouraged; and the suicidal criminals might get off a few less rounds. We can then introduce the fact that other bystanders might get shot than if only the criminal was armed, and bla, bla,bla. It can go on forever, but that just proves this is a societal issue, its not about the means used to murder, but why is this on the increase? We have had guns in this country for how many years? But only recently did we have these kinds of shootings what seems like every couple weeks. If guns are the common denominater, why is it spiking now?

March 13, 2013 How can it be credible that DEC is voluntarily handing out its own money and deliberately not performing its mandates, carrying out slated projects, or implementing existing conservation plans? After all, these are the DEC’s own ideas and working capital. The blame is sometimes put on “the state” and “politicians”. Although it is not hard to believe that tens of millions of dollars in the accounts comprising the conservation fund will perk up lawmakers; it is not believable that regulation proposals for fishing & hunting are dreamed up by the legislature or governor. These proposals are driven by either sportsmen or anti-hunters. Other times they are driven by non-shooting conservationists. However, the chain is longer than the special interest drivers. It is extended by advisory boards such as the open lands advisory board; conservation advisory board; and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. Additionally, the NY State Conservation Council is also empowered by state law to have a voice larger than individuals or small groups, unless those agree with the NYSCC, off course. The chain is longer and still does not end there. A proposal, in addition to passing both houses of the legislature and being signed by the governor; can be opened for public comment one or more times during the rule-making process. The public comment period is several weeks or months long and is advertised in newspapers, the DEC website, or in what is known as the state register or federal register for federal regulations. This comment period is used as a tool by special interests groups, when it is to their advantage; they blast announcements about it to their members and to the magazines (actually directly to the Outdoor Writers Association). When it does not work to their advantage, they keep it quiet. However, you are not their puppet, unless you choose to be. As an individual you can monitor the websites of the DEC, assembly, senate, and congress, and the state or federal registers, to keep apprised of public comment periods. This article is leading up to the politicization of conservation. Conservation began in the 1930s, but in 1957 NY passed the Fish and Wildlife Management Act which authorized the FWMB to make recommendations on management plans and work on private land cooperative agreements for hunting and fishing. Members of each regional board are politically appointed and/or from designated groups, such as agriculture, etc. During May, 2011, a bill passed the NY State Senate which extended the term limits of board members. The stated justification of this law was that by the time board members learned the ropes and became experienced, it was time for them to resign. Backtracking to 1982, NY passed another law which authorized the conservation advisory board which is self-explanatory. In 1992 still another law was passed which restructured the CFAB. This law put a handful of politicians and DEC staff on the board as “ex office” members. The stated reason for this law was to assist the regular board members in making decisions on time. A creed among sportsman is to remain united. That creed has helped keep anti-hunters and anti-firearm groups at bay. However, it also has created institutionalized thinking among sportsmen. This mentality has discouraged people from doing their own thinking and encouraged adopting whatever is said or proposed by large organizations that enjoy carte blanche access to the sporting media through the Outdoor Writers Association. One way the case is delivered by the sporting leadership is by criticizing “special interest legislation”. However, they only consider a bill S.I.L. when it is not one of their proposals. And as mentioned earlier, some proposals are announced widely when it helps, but others slide through the entire legislative process with stealth when advantageous. Conservation and sporting policy should be ecology-based, not politically- based. Indoctrination drives politics, not conservation. Sportsmen love to tout science-based decisions and label themselves conservationists after making a statement about the difference between a preservationist and a conservationist. However, like industry, it is only science when it is consistent with their agenda. Everybody seems to agree that conservation has become politicized. The disagreement lies in who is to blame for driving politics. If the sporting leadership is “pushing back” with recommendations during a hearing and with new legislation, why isn’t that playing politics? Despite the dysfunction of that approach, chatter within the sporting community indicates some degree of endorsement of this retaliation. Citizen participation is useful to help natural resource managers (the DEC) balance the social and biological aspects of conservation. It seems that has evolved into politically facilitated groups insistent on telling the DEC what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and what not to do. When the DEC is proposing something they like or adopting one of their own proposals, it is one story. In those scenarios these groups endorse the DEC’s ideas, science, and statistics. When the DEC has other priorities or conclusions, it is a different story and politics enter. Apparently, politics entered in 2013 with a proposal to lower sporting license revenue, unless you believe that is just what the DEC wanted…