mike rossi

It might be helpful to both the moderaters and the users to add a forum called "conservation" and another forum called " conservation policies & politics".

Can you be more specific about this? Thanks. A couple of comments if you don’t mind. We can’t really refer to a "conservation fund" anymore, because this fund is comprised of 8 different accounts. Actually it had been like that since at least the early 1990s I think, but with 6 different accounts. To keep it simple, I will work with the year 2008 to 2009. That year the sales of lifetime licenses spiked from a little over $2 million up to well over $24 million dollars. First question is why did everyone run out and buy a lifetime license that year? That $24 million dollars did not go into one of the accounts which the DEC could access for the projects you mention. It went into an account named the fish and game account. Existing policy was/is for the NY State Comptroller to transfer the fish and game account to the short term investment pool were it stays, forever or indefinetly. The interest up to, but not more than 6%, would be returned to an account named the traditional account 12 months after generating interest. Six percent of a lifetime license is approximately the cost of an annual license. If more than 6% is earned, that extra money DOES NOT revert to the traditional account, but is taken by the state comptroller, who tranfers it as well, into the STIP. The legislative justification for this was to sustain the conservation fund. That doesn’t seem to be necessary, however. Even if it is, conservation projects are like cancer treatment, the earlier they are implemented, the better the prognosis. An investor does not have the same perspective as a conservation biologist. The investor should understand, however, that when a government buys open land each dollar generates five dollars. So that is a 500% return. What is better 500% or 6%? It gets worse. During at least one year, and there may be other years, the state comptroller refused to return earned interest to the traditional account. The reason was because the investments didn’t even yield six percent. That year, ALL of the interest that was earned was dumped back into the STIP. I cannot be sure, but I highly suspect that this is the hang up between the DEC and the FWS regarding federal funds. If that is the case, isn’t it just another reason to discontinue this strategy? Another thing I have a problem with is who or what is stalling a laundry list of conservation plans when not only does the state have its own funds, but can be eligible for around $20 million dollars in federal grants to be used to complete those plans and leverage its own money three to one? When yourself or others say "the state", who exactly do you mean? State law authorizes an advisory board to steward the conservation fund; another advisory board to make recommendations and perhaps decisions to or for the DEC about cooperative land access as well as management projects. State law also gives an organization, representing sportsmen with some degree more say so than you or I as individuals. If you consider a number of things together, one can’t help but become suspicious. Conservation can and does balance biology with sociology, but it has become crippled by becoming a political arena; as early as 1957, when NY passed the Fish and Wildlife Management Act (not same as the US Code). This is the act which authorizes the advisory board known as the FWMB. In 1982 NY passed another law which authorized another advisory board known as CFAB. In 1982 a new law was passed which essentially authorized politicians and DEC personal to be "ex offico board members" to "assist" CFAB, when the purpose of the board in the first place was to include stakeholders in policy say-so. Yet, in 1982 it is determined that those appointed by politicians and to represent stakeholders (you and me) need help from the politicians and the DEC? Kind of like after school tutoring... Now I realize that does not bode well for my premise that the DEC is not to blame, but I am willing to go out on a limb and assume the DEC's role is mainly technical advice, if anyone knows, please chime in. I am not sticking up for the DEC, I disagree with much of their policies and strategies. However, like I said, conservation has become a political arena, so why not look at politicians and the people those same politicians appoint to advisory boards, and powerful special interest groups which influence politicians, instead of primarily focusing on the DEC? I think it is about time we nail down exactly who we are talking about when we refer to the "state screwing us". I would't point at the current state comptroller either, because he has criticized the abuses regarding the STIP. Until that is determined, it is only complaining based on conjecture and speculation.

NY has used a strategy for several years which purportedly will sustain conservation funding, however this locks up large amounts of money and does not seem to be necessary in the first place. Time is of the essence characterizes conservation. There is no time to play politics or investment banking with conservation funds. Investment in conservation pays, it does not cost... One example is open land returns a yield of five dollars on one dollar invested. Policy makers instead decided to invest a portion of sporting license revenues not in conservation, but in the state short term investment pool at a maximum return of 6% and delay the DEC access to that return for 12 months while tens of millions of principle is run through the state's STIP and not accessible to the DEC for an indefinite time. It is our goal to make the conservation community fully aware of this and make their own decisions on whether this strategy is wise. Those who are opposed to this strategy can boycott lifetime sporting licenses and buy annual licenses instead. In addition those opposed can contact the NY state assembly & senate, particularly those representing their voting district and the chairs of the assembly & senate environmental conservation committees. http://youtu.be/0aWP8ZzgetQ

Look at how good their math is too... According to the dec commissioner, license fees will not have to be increased for five years at the current "burn-rate". So with lower fees in effect do we: Lower the burn-rate thereby exasperating the exact thing which the supporters of the proposal complained about, namely less services.... Or... increase license fees within five years instead of at five years Or... Keep the burn rate the same and operate under the reduced license fees and run out of money?

Obama has recently been trying to sequester most of the federal conservation funds and did succeed, however I am not sure about exactly which ones or if he got any of the PR or DJ funds. Not a good thing in any event, but NY may be disquailified anyway if they dont conform to the law soon... Heck of a racket. Introduce gun control laws which drive up the demand for ammo, and then a few weeks later, sequester the built in conservation tax...

Thank you!!!! That is exactly what I am getting at, except I would prioriize other things before en con officers... This was apparently driven by spite and all it is doing is making conservation MORE political... Making it MORE of a political arena than it has already become...

Meanwhile in New York a teenager can get an abortion easier than you can buy a box of skeet loads...

You must be talking about the "bold face" in 2009, pun intended.... And I assume the public entity you are refering to is the dec? But you are getting distracted! Fast forward to February 2013. In February of 2013; the DEC commissioner, Joe Martens, on recorded testimony said that " at the current burn rate it will not be necessary to increase sporting license fees for five years". He also was asked if he supported a license fee reduction, His answer , also recorded and on the record, was NO. During the same hearing and also recorded and on the record, several people who represent the sporting community testified in favor of fee reductions under the justification that the DEC is doing less for sportsmen. Other justification given was basically their opinions about what is wildlife management and what is not. I personally disagree with the opinions given and apparently so does the DEC, evinced by the fact that the controversial management strategies were the DECs own plan... The next thing we know is that the governor made a license fee proposal and at least one of the management strategies was put on hold. What makes it even more erroneous was that particular management strategy was not slated for conservation funds, but other funds derived from the public at large, not exclusivly the sporting community. Somebody wanted the lifetime license revenue to spike as it did in 2009 - because as discussed, that revenue was diverted from conservation and into the state short term investment pool. But you seem to be blaming that on an unspecified goverment entity, presumably the dec. I am sceptical that this was engineered by the dec, though someone may have had a gun put to thier head. However, this could have been stopped at the time when the separate account within the conservation fund was proposed. We do have a "conservation advisory board" you know... Why didnt they "advise" against this? Now, here we are, only two weeks later, in March 2013; and thousands of members of the sporting community have all these theories about the blame being on the safe act, the democrats, the antis, "tree huggers', and the DEC... And those theories are going to be told over & over so many times they will become accepted as fact. Next the same theories will be published in sporting news letters and magazines. Next the politicians and board members will go with the easy flow created for them. What else is new? I am sure, even after all that, someone will post right after this about it being the safe act or some thing. Or instead of focusing on march 2013, will go back to the past, even a few years ago and connect this to one scapegoat or another or another event in history. Those in power have quite a good racket going because they know how sportsmen think and how to manipulate them, dont they? They even appoint those who sit on the advisory boards...

By the way, did we establish with post number 8 that this proposal was invented and driven by both the Conservation Fund Advisory Board AND Governor Cuomo? Did we also establish that this began at least one year before the Sandy shootings and the Safe Act? Or is there still a pink-sky disagreement and Rossi is full of it?

You were getting ripped off with life time licenses long before this proposal... How much? Here ya go... 2008: $2,169,473 2009: $24,522,839 2010: $3,110,034

Note Bold underlined in written statement one year ago,(the safe act is not one year old!) says in black and white the cfab and Cuomo agree on this, and that "there is no need to carry a large balance in the conservation fund... Said the same thing this year. January 19, 2012 Thomas Congdon Assistant Secretary for Energy and Environment Executive Chamber Albany, NY 12224 RE: Impacts to the NYS Conservation Fund Dear Mr. Congdon, The Conservation Fund Advisory Board (CFAB) was pleased to see language placed in the Governor's proposed budget that appears to protect the Conservation Fund from being swept and not jeopardize the estimated $20 million in federal aid New York annually receives to assist with the fish and wildlife program in NYSDEC. As I stated in my conversations with yourself and Mr. Rosenthal, I urge you to get confirmation in writing from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service that the proposed budget language addresses the concerns raised and the federal aid is not in jeopardy of being lost so that we can pass this information on to the sporting community. At the January 19th meeting of the CFAB, there was also considerable discussion of the Governor's budget proposal to shift 65 Environmental Conservation Officers from the General Fund to the Conservation Fund. The Board was also notified at their December meeting that 20 ECO's were moved on to the Conservation Fund. As I have previously stated in my correspondence and conversations with the Governor's Office, the CFAB fully understands that a portion of the costs associated with the ECO's should be paid by the Conservation Fund. However, the board agreed that it is absolutely unacceptable that this administration continues to offload ECO's onto the Conservation Fund without being able to fill the numerous vacancies that exist within DEC's Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources (DFWMR). The CFAB receives monthly updates on staffing levels within the DFWMR and the number of employees on the Conservation Fund. Please review the information pulled from the Filled Position report [in the table below] when the license fee increase went into effect (8/2009) and the report from December 2011. It is clearly evident from the current staffing levels in the DFWMR that the level of service provided to sportsmen through their license fees has significantly decreased despite a significant license fee increase. Filled Position Report August 2009 December 2011 Total staff in the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources (DFWMR) 412 349 Total DFWMR staff on Conservation Fund 189 228 Total Department (DEC) staff on Conservation Fund 203 259 The members of the CFAB re-emphasize the point that hunting, fishing and trapping community in New York State is the only interest group that funds the management of the resources that are important to them. Hunting, fishing and trapping license sales (1.5 million per year) generate approximately $47 million dollars per year and leverage millions more in federal aid as a direct result of the license sale revenue. In addition, hunting, fishing and trapping generates an estimated $2 billion to the state economy on a yearly basis, supporting thousands of jobs across New York. It is evident from the information CFAB has received that the money collected from the sporting community is not being used in the manner it was intended to when the license fee increase was initiated. The CFAB will continue discussions on recommending a significant license fee decrease to spur participation in hunting, fishing, and trapping and foster the economic benefits derived from increased recreation activity. During Governor Cuomo's press conference (Aug. 2011) on the repeal of the Recreational Marine Fishing License, he made the point that the license fees were unfair and caused a negative impact to the local economy. Reduced Conservation Fund allocations have resulted in reduced fish and wildlife program delivery and a significant balance in the Conservation Fund. There is no need to carry this large balance with the current staffing levels in the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources so reduced revenues and reduced fees seem to be completely in order and are consistent with Governor Cuomo's messages. The CFAB looks forward to working with the administration to resolve this issue. Sincerely, Jason Kemper Chairman, NYS Conservation Fund Advisory Board Cc: Senate Environmental Conservation Committee Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee New York State Conservation Council Conservation Alliance of New York New York State Outdoor Writers Association

Reality Check: Much different from Cuomo's news release, but reducing the conservation fund by increasing its burn rate is on the record as the justification for this proposal by its supporters, namely representatives of the CFAB, NYSCC, FWMB. As far as the DEC proposing this, the commissioner of the DEC was asked during the same hearing if he supports this and he very clearly said he did NOT and that is also on the record... Although Senator Grisanti, a republican, told someone who called his office about it that "it is a republican proposal" and during the hearing, Grisanti seemed to support it, the DEC's website refers to it as the "governor's proposal". Interesting that both parties want credit for a real bad idea. Bipartisan Stupidity?

That is an opinion and choice of yours and some others; but there is another school of thought. People who follow that other line of thinking call themselves conservationists. Conservationists give up a portion of thier income and a portion of thier spare time to volunteer. They realize that it is not sustainable for everbody to hunt the rest of their lives for $50. Made worse that the $50 does not even go toward conservation, but into the general fund... There are tens of thousands of shooting-conservationists and another tens of thousands of non shooting conservationists who regularly perform volunteer labor for the DEC, FWS, and non-profit conservation organizations such as Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy. Conservationists also make cash donations to non profit organizations. There are also voluntary donations which can be made to the NY DEC through the blue bird license plate, the one dollar wildlife check off on your tax return, and the habitat/access stamp which can be bought where you buy your hunting license.

http://youtu.be/CWWFrHn63eA

Probably not, but I am thinking about it. The fact that they think it is important to hold a meeting to explain sporting licenses, when the whole change was advertised as "simplifying & streamlining" does have me interested though, lol... Funny - you think the hunter ed instructers are going to need supplemental training and be required to expand their courses to explain this new and simplified system...

For information only, not a political forum or public comment hearing! Wednesday March 6, 2013 7 PM Location: Room A & B State Office Building 207 Genesee Street Utica, NY People with questions about meetings and locations can call Stephen Litwhiler at 315-785-2252. FYI: The State Office Building is close to the County Office Building. The State Building is the west building, closer to Genesee Street.

For information only, not a political forum or public comment hearing! Tuesday March 5, 2013 7 PM Location: Middle School Cafetria at the Gouverneur High School 113 East Barney Street Gouverneur, NY FYI: The cafeteria where the meeting will take place is in the middle school, but the high school and middle schools are connected. The main entrance to the school is a canopy entrance fronting Barney Street, which leads directly into the high school lobby.

For information only, not a political forum or public comment hearing! Tuesday March 5, 2013 6:30 PM Location: DEC Office in Cortland

Timeline Findings as of March 1, 2013 on Sporting License Changes In late February of 2013 the joint environmental conservation budget hearing was held. The DEC commissioner indicated that the conservation fund “was doing well”. Senator Mark Grisanti, who also is the chairman of the senate environmental conservation committee referred to a “surplus” in the CF. Environmental Protection Fund has been increased $19 million for 2013. The EPF is not derived from sporting license revenue. The NYSCC, FWMB, and the CFAB have testified during the joint environmental conservation budget hearing in February 2013, that the sporting community is receiving less services from the DEC, particularily because of fewer staff, and therefore they are recommending that the fees of sporting licenses be reduced. The NYSCC, FWMB, and CFAB also testified that they object to the EP Fund being used to control hydrilla, an invasive aquatic plant, in Cayuga Lake. They also object to the EP Fund being used to make five year installment payments to purchase Adirondack land known as the former Finch property. DEC commissioner Martens indicated when questioned by Senator Mark Grisanti, during the hearing, that he did not support a decrease in fees for sporting licenses. A few days later, Governor Cuomo released a news press announcing a proposal to eliminate several classes of sporting licenses and reduce license fees. One of the licenses to be phased out is the trapping license. Some trappers are opposed to this for unspecified reasons and some have contacted the legislature about this. An anecdotal source of information claimed that Senator Grisanti had indicated the license fee reduction was a republican proposal and its purpose was to prevent “raiding” of the conservation fund.

Everybody likes to save money, but the devil is in the details...

These are information meetings, NOT public comment hearings. For informational purposes only, the Dec is providing information, not taking comments or opinions at these meetings. Please post if you know of any other meetings about this. You may have heard about the recent proposal by Governor Cuomo to streamline NY's Hunting and Fishing License's. The proposal reduces the number of licenses from 17 to 7, reduces costs for most license categories, and ? eliminates the trapping license???? In an effort to fully inform the public about the proposal, DEC will be holding meetings around the state during the next two weeks. In order to provide as many opportunities as possible for people to be informed about the proposal, two additional meetings have been scheduled since the e-mail sent earlier. Region 6 staff will be holding a total of four meetings to explain the proposal and answer questions that people might have. Region 6 meetings: 1.The Watertown meeting will be held on Thursday, February 28th, from 7-9 PM in Room 3, on the 11th floor of the Watertown State Office Building, at 317 Washington Street in Watertown, NY. 2.The Utica meeting will be held on Thursday, February 28th, from 7-9 PM, in Room A & B, on the 1st floor of the Utica State Office Building, at 207 Genesee Street, in Utica, NY. 3.A meeting is scheduled on Tuesday, March 5th, from 7-9 PM, in the Middle School Cafeteria, at the Gouverneur High School, 113 East Barney Street, Gouverneur, NY. The cafeteria where the meeting will take place is in the Middle School, but the High and Middle Schools are connected. The main entrance to the school is a canopy entrance fronting Barney St, which leads directly into the high school lobby. 4.Another Utica meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, March 6th, from 7-9 PM, in Room A & B, on the 1st floor of the Utica State Office Building, at 207 Genesee Street, in Utica, NY. People with questions about the meetings and their location can call Stephen Litwhiler at 315-785-2252. Region 3: There will be an informational meeting tonight (2/27) in New Paltz from 7:00 to 9:00 pm at the Region 3 headquarters south putts corners rd contact #is 845-256-3018 Region 7 has two meetings scheduled: 1. Tonight at the State Fairgrounds in Syracuse. Call DEC Syracuse for time of meeting at the fairground. 2. Tuesday March 5, 6:30 PM at the DEC office in Cortland.

Highlights of sportsmen–related testimony during the 2013 NY DEC budget hearing DEC Commissioner Joe Martens Discusses FWS audit of budget causing problems with eligibility for federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds: CFAB, FWMB, and NYSCC License fees and Conservation Fund, among other things. Mark Grisanti, 60th Senate District, Chairman of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee License fees, pheasant farm, conservation fund, federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds Sean Ryan 48th Senate District Pheasant farm, fish hatcheries Sweeney assembly Federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds Daniel Stec 114th District Assembly Opposes Land Acquisition with EP funds which were increased $19 million this year Otis, 91st District Assembly Wants the DEC to emphasis engineering solutions for flood mitigation over eco-based land solutions. In other word; construction instead of restoration of natural systems which buffer storms and floods with associated benefits to recreation and ecology. NY Audubon Society Testifies about federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds and sweeping of conservation fund. Hunters may be surprised that a NY bird watchers organization, has been watching the federal funds paid into by sportsmen via excise taxes on guns, ammo, archery gear, and some hunting and fishing equipment other than guns and ammo and outboard oil. Nature Conservancy Explains its role as a land trust, including its purchase of the Finch property to be sold to the DEC over a five year installment. William Cook, Citizens Campaign for the Environment Explains he was involved in from the beginning of the EPF and indicates the original intent had only the purpose of land acquisition. This fund now has several accounts for diverse uses, however it puts the strain on the DEC to administer the fund into those diverse uses, such as pumping water in Queens to alleviate basement flooding of residents. Grisanti - Asks DEC to look at an agriculture special interest “ASAP”

The links dont work so I deleted the post, sorry about that. If I can get it to work I will repost sometime.

I really feel like I am chasing you, but no that is not my intention, but you are miscategorizing what I said. I did not say that I subscribe to the "give an inch they want a mile" philosophy. I just said that is the way some hunters think, not the way myself thinks. Another line of thinking among us that is common is one which hunters embrace and cling to an idealogy which 1) fits in with their personal hunting agenda 2) is promoted by sporting magazines and/or organizations. Are you arriving at your position because of print or ancedotal info or is this your own critical thinking? Either way, you and I disagree about this issue and I want as much opportunity to express my opinions and influence novice hunters as the magazines and organizations. I think I can state my opinion without diminishing your opinion; and you can do the same. Regarding the indigenious species issue you raise... Wildlife management has a biological dimension and a human or social dimension. The goal is to balance both dimensions as best possible while understanding a perfect balance is impossible. There are arguably positive social benefits from both wild pheasant populations and liberated pheasant hunting programs. Despite originally being an introduced species, there are also biological benefits from both restoring wild populations and put and take hunting as well. Those biological benefits, as I already stated, are the increase in grassland habitat and conservation funding. Although pheasant are not a native, indigeous species, they share habitat requirements with many native species, including species of concern, one example being henslows sparrow, another being the karner blue butterfly. The promotion of pheasant as a game bird facilitates the conservation of grassland habitat which many native species, including rare species require. Considering grassland habitat is only second to wetland habitat in both productivity and acreage loss, it should be a priority to conserve. The ecological services provided by wetlands and grasslands is several hundred times greater than forested lands. Putting that in dollar terms, the return on one dollar the state puts into conservtion land is five dollars, making it the single best investment it can make. Likewise there are not any invasive qualities to pheasant. They do not cause problems for people or the ecology. Using conservation funds for both the restoration of wild pheasant and put and take hunting programs does not cost, it actually pays. The HSUS would like to distort that and others who are not aware of the big picture can be easily dupped into percieving the stocking program as a bottom less pit without payback. Furthermore our state conservation fund has been used so lightly that it has been growing, not shrinking. Not using the CF also forfiets millions of dollars of federal matching funds. Partners such as the nature conservancy, audobon, and ducks unlimited have made wise us of those funds. Other partner groups advocate they are either unused or used toward infastructure such as parking and launching. That doesnt bode for sincerity when they turn around and discredit funding the pheasant hatchery and orthodox wildlife management practices...

And who brought back trade with china? I think it was reagen, then clinton ran with the ball? And so did bush and obama... As predicted china and India would be getting this natural gas, increasing demand and therefore our cost in the US, instead of the other way around as "advertised"... There was also some speculation that the profit wouldnt be there for the energy companies very long. Other predictions were that china and india would buy out the us companies and/or the leases from landowners in NY and Pa. The following article shows that already is occuring. So there you go, china owns some NY open space. Its going to be interesting listening for deer or turkeys gobbling over roaring flares across the countryside in upstate... Heres the article: China Petrochemical Corp., the nation’s second-largest energy company, will pay $1.02 billion to buy 50 percent of Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK)’s Mississippi Lime assets, seeking to benefit from surging U.S. crude output. The assets in Oklahoma produced 46,000 barrels of oil a day at the end of 2012, according to an e-mailed statement released today by Beijing-based unit Sinopec International Petroleum Exploration & Production Corp. Cnooc Ltd. (883), a unit of China’s largest offshore oil producer, has bought $1.65 billion of assets from Chesapeake since 2010. U.S. energy acquisitions may soar after Cnooc this month won approval from the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment to buy Nexen Inc. (NXY) for $15.1 billion. Chinese companies are seeking energy assets globally to lock in supplies for the world’s fastest growing major economy and access technology to retrieve fuel trapped in rocks that has driven U.S. oil production to the highest in almost 21 years. “While Chesapeake has many quality assets, Chinese oil companies care more about their drilling and shale-fracking technology,” Laban Yu, Hong Kong-based analyst at Jefferies Group Inc., said in a telephone interview. “The reason Chinese oil companies have gone after Chesapeake in the past year was also because they wanted to apply the technology to tap the world’s No.1 shale gas reserves in China.” Rising Production China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. (386), the listed unit of the Sinopec Group, gained 0.5 percent to HK$8.80 in Hong Kong. The shares have increased 0.2 percent this year, compared with a 0.7 percent gain in the benchmark Hang Seng index. Chesapeake increased 1.5 percent to $20.50 in New York trading on Feb. 22. The stock has gained 23 percent this year after dropping 25 percent in 2012. U.S. oil output climbed 54,000 barrels a day to 7.12 million in the week ended Feb. 15, the highest level since July 1992, the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Energy Department, said Feb. 22. Chesapeake may need to sell as much as $9 billion in assets this year after divesting about $11 billion in oil fields and pipelines in 2012 to plug a funding shortfall, Brian Gibbons, an analyst at CreditSights Inc, said last week. The company expects to announce early this year transactions involving holdings in the Mississippi Lime formation in Oklahoma and Kansas as well as the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas, Jeffrey Mobley, the Oklahoma City-based company’s vice president of investor relations, said during a presentation at a Feb. 5 conference. Debt Load Aubrey McClendon, chief executive officer at Chesapeake, agreed on Jan. 29 to step down by April 1 from the company he co-founded 23 years ago after slumping gas prices erased profits, worsened Chesapeake’s debt load and triggered job cuts and asset sales. The company’s $13.6 billion market value is less than half its $35.6 billion peak from 2008 and a fraction of the $100 billion estimate that McClendon pegged as its true value during a March 2012 interview. Sinopec Chairman Fu Chengyu said in May his company had held talks with Chesapeake and others about investing in shale assets. Fu was seen sitting in a front-row seat at Chesapeake Energy Arena in Oklahoma City in June 2012 watching the Oklahoma City Thunder take on the Miami Heat in an NBA final. The Thunder is partly owned by Clendon.