mike rossi

No kidding Police sometimes have to shoot people as well. But cops dont always live up to their mottos. I am talking about the proverbial "inappropriate use of force". It happens more than it is filmed and it has been filmed enough times to prove beyond the doubt of only a complete fool that it happens way too often. Like I said, two cops shooting a 5 pound dog cannot be reconciled. This wasnt a situation were the cops were executing a warrant or something. They went to speak to a neighbor in a seperate single family house and walked to the front deck of another house and shot the dog because they said it menaced them. Thats one example, surf around you tube, you find hundreds of others...

There is a difference between a desirable introduced species and an an undesirable one. It can be further argued that the recreation derived from pheasant hunting takes pressure off of native species such as snow shoe hare, woodcock and ruffed grouse and while doing so it generates both conservation funds as well as general economic stimulation. I got a big problem with your statement about gratifying a minority of sportsman. Small game and waterfowl hunting is the lowest on the totem pole period. By comparisism the attention and resources given to special interest deer-related and fishing issues does not bode well for your argument. I am not skating the part of your argument you reference instant gratification. I appreciate that, but not only is that an exageration - the exact same argument can be made about antler restrictions, rifle hunters participating in archery seasons only because cross bows are allowed, fish stocking, youth seasons, and much more can be attributed to the instant gratification or lazyness mantra. Sometimes that mantra is very credible, for example the use of bait for waterfowl. Unlike you, some hunters take an anything goes attitude; according to their logic, if you dont unite in every and all aspects we will be divided, fall down the slippery slope and suffer incremental losses to hunting opportunities and gun rights. I am not accusing you, but anytime a sportsman takes a pro conservation stance, I am suspicious it is driven by self interest in discharge of policy or money appropriations. The recent video of the budget hearing demonstrates the tug a war for a pool of money for diverse uses by diverse groups. In other words I am not sure your concern with invasives is genuine or you are just using the common practice of aligning a conservation concern to further your own special interest. Many biologists have criticized the reintroduction of native, wild turkeys through out the US because they outcompete other native species both game and non game species and impact several species of concern (amphibians) which they feed on. So when it comes to turkeys, are you concerned with their direct impact and their funding impact on salamanders, certain song birds, and ruffed grouse? I didnt think so...

Wrong analysis / interpretation of graphs? Refer to page three of the adobe pdf file or simply type into the adobe pdf files search box: Investing in the state fish and game trust may have incurred a large loss in 2010. Although that statement may be true, that is why the word “may” was chosen to begin with, taking a second look at the Cartesian coordinate graph / histogram and table 3, we realized that these graphs do not support that statement. Referencing table 3 the fish and wildlife trust fund is shown in 2009 to be $24,533,839 and only $3,110,034 in 2010. However that appears to be revenue, not balance. We believe that so because of figure 2. The line segments and the bars seem to be consistent with table 3, and table 2 is sales and revenue data. What misled us was the migratory bird account. We are looking into it, but to our knowledge states do not receive any appropriations from the federal migratory bird stamp and we were assuming this referred to the state migratory bird stamp which was discontinued in 2002 or so. That being the case, we thought the “gross revenue” shown in the migratory bird account was actually left over, unused funds since 2002, which were being used ($3969 in 2008 decreased to $669 in 2009 which is then shown as $477 in 2010. If anyone knows about the migratory bird account (state, not federal) please advise us. The sporting community should still find these graphs interesting, however. Figure 2 shows a huge spike in the sale of lifetimes from 2008 to 2009. Why? Was this heavily publicized at that time? Why and what was the justification for encouraging lifetimes? From 2009 to 2010 sales of lifetimes levels out, is that because most people who want them bought them? Or is it because some awareness was born? Table 3 also clearly shows the amount of money taken out of the conservation pool and into diverse investments and lending other state agencies with money woes. We find it remarkable that this account is named “Fish and Game Trust Account” – it now has nothing to do with what that name suggests and the funds in the account named traditional account do. How in the world did this happen? It was okayed by the CFAB, FWMB, NYSCC, DEC, LEGISTLATURE, GOVERNOR, embraced by the NY sporting community, and escaped the radar of the FWS at least for a while. One thing is certain: do NOT buy lifetime licenses and do NOT buy lifetime licenses for underage children either.

Funds from Lifetime license sequestered from conservation Conservation fund has added a fund called the fish and game trust account. It is sometimes called the fish and game trust fund. The conservation fund has 8 different accounts Traditional account Marine resources/shellfish account State fish and game trust account* Migratory bird stamp account Guide’s license account Habitat account Venison donation account Outdoor recreation and trail maintenance account [*]State fish and game trust account Sequesters and separates funds from lifetime licenses from other license funds. Lifetime license fees are put into the fish and game trust account. All other (annual) sporting license funds are put into the traditional account. Funds in the fish and game trust account are not accessible or liquid. Funds are not used for conservation instead invested by the state comptroller in the Short Term Investment Pool (“STIP”). Traditional account is used for conservation practices only. Interest/yield/return from the state fish and game trust account might revert to the traditional fund account to be used for conservation. State keeps yield beyond price of an annual sporting license, therefore, the maximum amount that can revert back to the traditional account and thereby be used for conservation is the price of an annual license. The actual law follows: iii.Earned income from the sale of all lifetime licenses, except income earned on the proceeds of the sale of a lifetime license during the period from sale of such license until April first of the year following one full year of deposit of the proceeds of the sale of such lifetime license, shall be available for deposit within the conservation fund pursuant to paragraph one of this subdivision in an amount equal to the cost of the appropriate annual license. The earned income which exceeds the current cost of each annual license comparable to the lifetime license shall be added to the trust account as principal. The earned income from lifetime licenses issued to persons who are under the legal age to implement such licenses shall be added to the trust account as principal until such person becomes of legal age to hunt, fish or trap. Very complicated stipulations are set forth for lifetime licenses bought for children before they are old enough to hunt, as written in the state finance law quoted above. The funds in the fish and game account can be used by the state to lend itself money creating a ‘shell game’ according to state comptroller, DiNapoli: (The states STIP, which holds unused funds from various agencies and was intended as a kind of credit line for ‘episodic shortfalls’ is ‘now used to cover built in and permanent structural deficits’. See below or click link: http://www.osc.state...pr10/040510.htm Abusing Temporary Loans •The state often borrows from the state’s Short Term Investment Pool (STIP) to meet short-term cash shortfalls. These loans, intended to cover episodic shortfalls, are now used to cover built-in and permanent structural deficits. For the last 10 years, the state has closed the fiscal year with an average of $1.4 billion in outstanding temporary loans, clearly illustrating the state’s failure to address chronic deficits deeply embedded within the budget. •The General Fund is increasingly relying on temporary loans from other funds. In December 2009, for the first time in recent history, the state closed the month with a General Fund cash deficit of $577 million prior to adjustments. In 2010-11, DOB is projecting the General Fund will have to borrow from other funds for four months in a row, starting in May. Federal conservation funds may be affected In 2012, language in the New York State budget did not comply with the conditions of receiving federal conservation funds. The NY DEC and FWS worked with the governor’s office to meet compliance and language in the budget was revised. However, the fish and wildlife service indicated that although they would accept this revision for 2012; that in the following year, 2013, more revisions were necessary. During the 2013 Environmental conservation budget hearing, there was discussion that the FWS again rejected the language in this year’s budget. The commissioner of the DEC had indicated that during this hearing that the issue is being resolved. This is not verified, but we believe part of the issue regarding New York’s eligibility for federal sport fish and wildlife restoration funds is due to the sequestration of lifetime license funds 3. Investing the state Fish and game trust account may have incurred a large loss in 2010*** ***Supporting graphs attached to adobe file at the beginning of post, on page 3*** For other issues, follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook...365031743546569

The CF is derived from proceeds of license sales by law (assent legistlation) spending of that fund is restricted to a narrow and specific range of uses. Despite the availability for federal funds matching the states CF 3:1; the fund has been used lightly enough to allow it to have grown. Three advisory boards have recommended rather than use those state and federal conservation funds for the allowable conservation uses to instead reduce the price of sporting licenses. The legislature and governor liked thier recommendation and the rest is history I guess. Same advisory boards stated the justification of the license fee reduction was to increase conservation funding. Same advisory boards disagree with conservation funds being used to control invasive plants in one of the Finger Lakes. Same advisory group disagrees with the use of EPF to aquire the Finch Land in the north country. Same advisory boards cite lack of boat ramp on Hudson River, after stating the conservation fund is so large they recommend reducing sporting license fees. Its completely logical corruption...

The FWS agreed to language last year but told them that next year they have to do even better. Apparently NY didnt change a dam thing, as a matter of fact they told the FWS "well you accepted this last year", to which the FWS replied "but we told you 2013 we want even more protected language". The state says it is currently working on revisions to get into compliance and expects no problem. I dont know what you are getting at with this. Are you alluding that the states CF can grow to the point it maxes out its leverage based on licnse sales and land? First of all there would be no acceptable excuse for that. Second of all, as far as I know, the CF can be used for conservation independent of using federal leverage, but it cant be used for non-related things or swept. Those PR fund rules are a great tool for distraction every year arent they? Gives the sporting magazines and the newspapers something to write about and stir things up . Which in turn makes our advisory boards, ploiticians, and organizations look like there all working !

They cant "sweep" or "divert" license fees because they will forfiet those federal funds and this is protected by "assent legistlation". They are "sweeping" the EP fund however, if you believe the rep from the NY Env. Advocates who says he helped create it 20 years ago who indicated its intent was land aquisition and nothing else. Even if he is wrong, everybody is trying to get their hands on that money, thats why the hearing is almost 8 hours long... But you raised the PR Funds... Those are grants. The state has to submit a proposal and if approved the federal funds are dispersed. One of the stipulations of the grant is that the state and/or nonprofit partners contribute 25%, the grant picks up the remaining 75%. The maximum the state is eligible for is contingent on how many licenses it sells (prev. 5 year average) and how many acres of open space it has. How much it actually gets is three times the matching funds, ie. the conservation fund it invests in its proposal(s). So why has that fund ballooned? And why not move forward differently and use the conservation fund for conservation and leverage the available dollars? - because the three advisory boards suggested to put the fund on a diet by reducing the price of licenses. Go figure. They did give a few bogus justifications such as that the CF should not be used to control invasives. They also were misleading, perhaps intentionally, when they discussed the Finch Land in the ADK, because they did not make a clear distinction between the EPF and the CF. Like I said, IMO those justifications are bogus and even if they were not they have no bearing on going forward with proper use of the CF. Go figure again...

I KNOW you were, but not everyone reading this does and some who read it a month from now may not get your drift either....

Here is how they made ice cream to calm thier children:

Three people testifified that license fee reduction was justified because the conservation fund is swelling.... Additionally a senator implied in a question to the dec commissioner the same thing. Again: watch the video!

Yeah, but how many bowhunters do we have? Multiply that by one dollar and subtract it from the conservation fund. We save one dollar each and the hit on the fund is how much? This may be thee most outragous line of thinking in the history of conservation....

The advisory people are saying that the conservation fund is large and growing therefore the license fees should be reduced and that reduction will make the conservation fund even larger and then we can spend it for conservation. Explain that logic... If what I said directly above doesnt resonate with Parker's quote, then I suggest you listen to him, and the reps from the CFAB and FWMB, on the youtube video titled DEC budget hearing.

Chuck Parker, President, New York State Conservation Council, said, “From the feedback that I have received as President of the New York State Conservation Council, I would like to report that the Council is glad to see the proposal of a simpler license structure system as presented by DEC and the Governor’s Office and endorsed by the Conservation Fund Advisory Board. With the simpler license fee system there should be an increase in numbers and participation of hunters, fishermen, and trappers while still yielding a very positive economic impact to the NYS Conservation Fund, which should lead to increase funding possibilities being proposed.”

E Russel is using the sky is pink tactic here. I just gave you some reasons, did you read them? So you agree with the HSUS that the social component of NY's pheasant program is erroneous and not worthy - because thats pretty much what you are saying.... Anyway It isnt relevant and you are confusing the issue. The issue needs to separated into put and take pheasant hunting and restoring non native, but wild, population of pheasant. And as I said, I have given some supportive arguments in defense of both. But while you mention it, good question about grouse. Lets see how much thought you actually put into it! What is being done to maintain the young growth forest habitat of grouse? Is there no money for that as well? How many ruffed grouse society chapters exist in NY? Did you bring your concerns about grouse to the DEC, NYSCC, CFAB, FWMB, the NY legislature, or the Ruffed Grouse Society? How do you feel about the just passed license reduction to reduce the conservation fund instead of using it for the exact kinds of grouse projects which federal funds are meant to be leveraged for?

Again, I agree that the ecological approach is the way to reestablish reproducing populations of pheasants in the areas you mention and perhaps even on Long Island from what Im told. Were I disagree is that the lack of funding, the money is there, including, but not limitied to private funds from PF or even Audobon - the NY chapter has 50,000 members. Increasing grassland habitat would help a number of species of concern, one example is Henslows Sparrow, and the NY Aud. Chapter would take interest. Partnerships are not novel in conservation and it is a fine tuned practice that the DEC is well versed in. You indicated the NWTF has found the money and the partners, did you ever question why they move ahead if there is quote no money? The NYSCC, CFAB, and the FWMB obviously have not been conducive to basic wildlife management and have a reoccurring set of priorities. These boards consist of political appointeess entrusted to advise the DEC and politicians on both the social and biological aspects of conservation policy and use of conservtion funds, they are a dismal failure. As far as incubator hatched birds surviving, I believe in prime habitat, such as the Ontario Plains, the survival rate is one percent? Like the salary of a conservation officer, the return from habitat investment is much larger. But thats not where Im going here. That is in prime habitat. In poor or fair habitat I wouldnt be surprised if survival is zero, which really isnt much better than one percent anyway, come to think of it... I also disagree that pheasants, even pheasants hatched by an incubator, are not sporting. Yes, if you are bow hunting deer in a tree stand you can easily draw on a released bird compared to a grouse or turkey. Or if you happen into a flock just out of the box and 2 or 3 guys with benellis can limit out in seconds. Or the guy with no dog can listen for the roosters cackle and stalk up to a bird that has been released long ago, and if he knows the stocking schedule he can do it on a regular basis. Its up to yourself to decide how sporting you will make it. I guess they are not as hard to hit as a canvasback with a tail wind while your knee deep in muck, but more are missed than shot by even top wingshooters... I hope you continue with your mission. But I think you need to start your own PF Chapter and hire a wildlife biologist with farm bill experience.

A lot of tough talk about prying your gun from your cold dead fingers as well - and that is exactly what will happen. Tough talk gets nothing done, this is prevented by organized, grass roots lobbying to get good laws passed and bad laws abolished.

From the perspective of restoring wild, reproducing populations it is a failed system. From the perspective of recreation it is a sucess. It can also be argued that in pursuit of artificially hatched stock the conservation fund is bolstered to the benefit of wild-hatched game, non game, and endangered species...

So why dont you do it then?

I agree. Except ringnecks are a desirable non native. Recently South Dakota trapped surplus merriams turkeys for Utah. In the 1980s New Jersey traded wild hatched pheasant for turkeys from Missouri. Currently New Jersey is transfering its own wild hatched pheasant from one part of the state to other parts. There are more examples, this is not unheard of outside of the original introduction of pheasant to the US. And this would qualify for federal wildlife restoration funds. And the state has matching funds in the conservation fund. So why isnt it being done? Did you read the recently (last year) revised NY state ten year pheasant strategy, I did not, is there plans for trap and transfer of wild hatched birds, probably not. Why is that? There is not much, but there is some viable pheasant habitat. We just got a year-round coyote season... I could go on and on. Tell everyone about the role of the CFAB, FWMB, and NYSCC, because Im sick of repeating myself. They are suppossed to represent the interests of you and the resources, did you get any say so? Look at the ice cream passed the last couple years, do you like the ice cream? Who provided the recipe for the ice cream? An ecological approach such as you advocate is better, but its never been driven by the three above mentioned groups because they are not competent and if you mention it on this board for example I bet you will be asked if your an anti hunter. The conservation ethic has not been taught in this state and I dont see any change in sight. Assume it is correct that released pheasant do not live long enough to transfer disease or infuse bad genetics in the wild population. If we assume that to be true, and I predict it is, there are many benefits to a put and take hunting program. So I am supportive of the pheasant release program. Some states require hunters who hunt pheasant were they are stocked to buy a pheasant stamp which funds or partially funds the program. I do think this is a good idea, except if you have been following things as of late; the conservation fund is growing there is not a lack of funds. So what did the big three advise the lawmakers - to decrease the cost of hunting licenses. We dont need to reintroduce wild stock, habitat work and other common wildlife management practices. We need a 365 day coyote season and reduced hunting license fees. We also have a voluntary habitat/access stamp , the state dropped its STATE duck stamp. So in light of that, a pheasant stamp doesnt make sense anymore... You seem to have given this some thought, but may I ask if you raised this with the big three or the DEC itself?

A bill that would have made animal cruelty a felony in South Dakota has been rejected by the state Senate Ag committee. A report in the Examiner dot com says Ag groups lobbied heavily against Senate Bill 171, saying current animal abuse and cruelty statutes in South Dakota are working. The bill excluded farming and ranching practices but ag groups were heavily against the measure because it was supported by the Humane Society of the United States. The North Dakota state Senate passed a felony animal cruelty and abuse bill last week. North and South Dakota are the two states in the nation without felony laws against egregious animal cruelty

I never call a person a fool twice, except myself.

Your quite the fool... And I am not saying that because I am offended, but because you got a lot to learn...

Some of the article, including a photo, did not paste. I guess if someone wants to delve deeper into this they can go to their website.

Well, erussel, they just seized dogs in your neck of the woods, kirkwood, just yesterday, did you read that? Joe Mart the accompanying LEO will cheerfully shoot your dogs if they are aggressive, search you tube for cops shoot dogs - you will be surprised, they have even shot dogs weighing five pounds.

Unlike you, a lot of people are not aware, and think they are not completely in the door. Proof positive when hunters say "hush you will give them ideas". However they are not at the edge of the door, they are inside influencing policy. And the more we get distracted with tiddlywinks the more influence they will gain until they almost run it.