mike rossi

The issue of science is more relevant to conservation and the discharge of hunting policy than to second ammendment debates, a good example is that as someone stated, is really an article, not a study, and I dont think science can be applied to the relationship between guns and homicides and gun accidents. It is not relevant to this thread to discuss what science is and how it is incorporated into conservation mangement decisions and/or environmental conservation laws, particularily en-con laws regulating hunting, fishing, and trapping. I think this is an area of confusion and deserves a thread.

Doc, You describe what is termed "junk science" above. I am not sure if this stat report is even considered a scientific study to begin with. If it is, it would be considered a "meta study" which is nothing like an experimental or field study. Metas often start with preconceptions and cherry pick published studies to reach a preconcieved conclusion. It is not uncommon for these types of studies to be disproven by other studies. Anyway the results of this study dont really have any "decision implications". Like I alluded to earlier, so what that accidents are more frequent than home invasions? What is the significance of that? There is none, but it promotes a political agenda. Real science is conducted objectively without an agenda. Even when a legitimate study is used in policy, special interest groups from both sides of any controversial issue, and politicians, not the researchers, miscategorize the data and conclusions to make it fit their political agenda. The same exact thing is done with laws. The second ammendment is constituitional law which is a different breed of cat, and one that the supreme court has ruled on again and again. One example of political interpretation of a law is the Endangered Species Act. One side uses it to further an emotional animal rights agenda and sportsmen insist it is merely a political tool to iincrementally limit hunting opportunity.

Hopefully he didnt spawn yet either.

never mind.

When serious crimes outnumber accidents I think we might as well blow up the planet... Besides, take these numbers one step further, how do gun accidents compare to other accidents, including automobile...

You nailed it.

hunterman, Once a law is in place off course we bide by it like it or not. That doesnt mean we have to unconditionally accept any proposed law, thats why most of the time there is a public comment period. Who decides who the common enemy is? For the sake of example I am going to refer again to the budget hearing. The FWMB rep criticizes special interest legislation, while he is sitting next to a rep for the biggest source of it, the NYSCC. The next thing discussed and seemingly agreed upon is that the DEC budget is better applied to land aquisations should be distributed throut the state instead of a large pending Adirondack purchase. How slick is that... The DEC does do that off course. But whats more is that this particular land aquisition is recieving money from the bottle bill or something like that. It is very rural and as common in such areas is pretty much legally used by the public anyway. However under public trust it will be designated wilderness. Hunting is still allowed on wilderness lands, but other activities are not, it is those activities they are worried about, not hunting, not conservation/wildlife management. Its okay to reach beyond the scope of hunting and conservation as an individual, but when conservation advisory boards do it is not okay.The next thing that happens is other organizations work it into their newsletters and hunting magazines. The next thing that follows is the wilderness act is rumored to be anti hunting and organizations that support it ( the nature conservancy) are anti hunting. Said enough times it becomes truth to anyone who doesnt think for themselves. Thats what they have been doing and want to continue to be doing. Anyone as an individual has the right to disagree with the wilderness act, but not to miscategorize it as antihunting . A conservation entity never has the right to miscategorize it unnder the guise of working toward conservation and for hunters.

I have heard of running walkers, but I assumed they were just treeing walkers used for game that doesnt tree. Many TW have a lot of white, yours are darker. Are RW a different breed or strain?

Litters planned? Breed or cross breeds?

Ants, It is about the second ammendment, not hunting, and I agree that is a very big issue on principle. But registering bushmaster rifles and getting the minimum wager at wallmart to call in every ammo purchase isnt the only thing going on. There is a thread on here about crossbows with 5,100 views. Crossbows and bushmasters get a disportionate amount of attention considering the number of actual hunters they effect, especially directly. From a qualitative perspective those issues do not contribute to the overall enhancement of hunting, and if you disagree, I would be interested in your opinions. Backtracking: Why do certain special interest issues get undue attention? Although the "leadership", that is the NYSCC, CFAB, and the FWMB, blamed it on special interest legislation during the DEC budget hearing, I think along with sportsmens' media and marketing, it is in fact that leadership itself which drives special interest legislation. The unity of sportsmen has been a double-edged sword which has given us a strong voice, but the leadership has dictated what that voice says and that voice does not always represent the majority of sportsmen or the consensus' of wildlife biologists.

You got a good pack of hounds, whats the breed and age? They straight coyote dogs or do you hunt anything else? Bet some people on here would be interested in a pup do you got any litters planned?

Yeah, and the sick deer from Onieda County was farm-raised, it wasnt wild game per se. That error right there puts a significant dent in Snyder's credibility...

Well, that 7.5 hour video thread may get around to something similair because there was testimony about so-called special interest legislation.

Sorry, got off topic, Doc, can you start that thread you mentioned and move my posts?

Yes they did say that about those other weopons, and they were right. I am afraid the issue has become deeper than flintlocks vs. scoped in lines, long bows vs. recurves to early compounds to todays compounds. The weopons and other types of gear like, food plots, blinds, motorized conveyences, motion detectors, electronic calls and decoys.are only one aspect of way hunting has evolved. Seasons are structured differently, including the implementation of youth seasons. There are also antler restrictions in some area and the related rekindled interest in trophy hunting. A lot of complexity here. I think the litmus test might be if hunting continues to be a life long activity ( a hobby taken up as a child and continued as long as one is able) or if it morphs into an activity which is comparitively short-lived. If the main objective of hunting becomes that P&Y or B&C, what happens when that climax is reached or the testosterone which fuels ego sinks as it does with age? You cant fall back on small game hunting if it doesnt exist anymore. Deer are what is known as a keystone species. That means they affect the habitat they live in like beaver. The antis are right in saying deer populations will self regulate. But it is only their opinion that they should not be managed to maintain a diverse structure of habitats. Deer hunting also is the most profitable for state wildlife agencies. So deer hunting will be the last to go, along with (as counter-intuitive as it seems) - trapping. Most of you in here are like the majority of hunters and dont really give a rip, I know that. But when you look at sustainability it is a risky course. The acceptance of hunting by the public at large also needs to be considered. Some of the modern trends have never been popular with the public at large who have been accepting of most hunting traditions. Is a growing rift with the public at large sustainable?

They removed the video, which we posted on NY Dove Hunting Face book page, of the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation meeting that was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2012, in Room 901 LOB. One of the items on that meetings agenda was muzzleloading proposals. A senator (on the environmental conservation committee no less) was videotaped asking "what is a muzzleloader?" seconds before voting on muzzleloading legislation... At least this guy asked, that begs the question if others dont even do that... I dont know for sure, but if there are any skeptics, the transcript of the meeting may be available through the FOIL or other public disclosure laws. Or just ask someone who follows the page who may remember the video.

Pope; I dont have a fundemental problem with bushmaster rifles, but dont you find it interesting the popularity of them with the next genaration of hunters? This is a significant part of the problem. Hunting is evolving away from traditional woodsmanship. This is not sustainable.

Not uncommon. Buck deer during the rut in particular attack dead things, discarded tires or other junk, other animals and other deer, all the time. As a matter of fact in the USA the wild animal which attacks people most often is actually deer. Not cougars, bears, gators, sharks, or wolves, but deer. Look it up...

Between fracking and gun control his chances for reelection or other office is zero even if he turncoats on either. But the damage is done.

I dont think you are high jacking, I appreciate your input, wish there was more. You bet I get your point. However, the 7.5 hours is not about a single issue, as a matter of fact whoever created the video did not title it correctly. I do feel however, if someone is going to engage the influential players or those with power, it is very instructive to watch the entire video to get a feel for the people behind the names. I strongly disagree however, that the ban on bushmaster rifles or high cap. magazines is the biggest thing going on right now. I dont like the ban on principle, and dont get me wrong. I even know non gun owners who are shaken by the power of the federal and state goverment to take away their right to protect their families or just their property rights by propery seizure. The biggest national issue right now, and one that is particularily deadly to NY is hydrofracking. Believe me a gas well 500 feet from your house is a lot more like dictatorship than it is given credit for by many who still dont get it. Case in point: watch the video: The DEC boss is grilled by lawmakers and harrassed by protesters. Yet 4 years ago it was the lawmakers who instead of banning HVH, they issued a 4 year morituriom - now that expired. The DEC's job at this point is mitigation measures through regulations, that is what they are doing, the time to speak out against it was 4 years ago, and I am sure they did caution against it. So they are doing there job, and may not even have any power to ban it or even speak out againt it at this point, yet the anti HVH orgs are screaming at them and going along with the crocadile tears from the same body who had the authority to ban it, but chose a moriturium, Go figure... The biggest issue effecting the welfare of the sport of hunting isnt even the bushmaster ban. There is a plethora of things that need to change which impact the sport a lot more. The loyality to the NRA and other groups has created a solidarity which works, however, they perpetuate a very narrow, KISS, vicarious reality in which the priorities are out of order or miscategorized.

Doc, First of all, you can listen to this without actually watching it.(I listened to it while fleshing & stretching thawed out pelts.) Although if anyone is seriously thinking about engaging any of the lawmakers, agency heads, committee reps, or speakers for special interest organizations who testified at this hearing; it is helpful to observe their body language, see what they look like, get a general feel for who they are communicating with or who they feel is honest and believable. Or in many cases, who you are voting for or against. Second: Even if you had the time, it wouldnt be wise to listen to the entire 7.5 hours in a single block because there is too much varied information to sponge up. It is more efficient and more practical to listen or watch one hour or so a day. I can summorize the hearing, but that is not going to help sportsmen get a feel for the pulse of these people and the system. Most of them they observe the system and the players vicariously through the newsletters and magazines they read. Investing the time and mental energy creates a growing pain, but without breaking that pain barrier growth will not occur and as a result of that the sport of hunting will continue its downward spiral. We all heard the saying that some people make things happen, other people watch things happen, and additional other people say what happened? The people who have been running things (making things happen) and/or their replacements have not changed their mentality for generations. Unless one is totally satisfied with every existing, proposed, or pending law or policy it doesnt pay to sit back. If you do want change you must put in the same amount of effort as those running things, and that effort is enormous. And it starts with sacrificing time and paying attention.

Did you watch the video into the middle? Later three reps from the NYSCC, the CFAB, and the FWMB testified. A couple of hours later Kemp, Parker, and the other guy from the FWMB testify that the DEC is paying staff who do not function in wildlife and fisheries with the CF . They also said (and I dont agree) that the CF should not be used to remove invasive species. The three reps feel that sportsmen are footing the bill for non hunting/fishing expenses and with less staff on the payroll that the fund is being taken advantage of. Sounds like the NYSCC asked Grisanti to lower license fees and thats why Grisanti asked Commissioner Marteens. Martens answered straight out that the DEC does not plan to lower license fees. I agree that license fees should not be lowered. Invasive species removal definetly is an appropriate use of the CF and the idea it is not is mere "NRA Biology". The argument that because sportsman did not cause the invasive problem that the CF should not be used for invasive species projects is ridiculous and those kinds of ideas characterize the problem with the NYSCC, FWMB, and the CFAB. I am not sure and am going to check on it, but I am skeptical that the CF is used for payroll. Even if it turns out to be accurate, I wouldnt trust their judgement about which employees are working in the capacity of wildlife and fisheries biology. Don't confuse the matters, but federal conservation funds can be used for payroll, but only for temporary staff assigned to a specific approved project. Lot more to discuss about this hearing, what else?

This seems to be a trend, so we need to develop a response plan. Here is another instance: The California coyote hunt will go on, despite petition drive. Check out the full story at: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/coyote-contest-02-07-2013.html

we will forward this around for you. please let us know what happens.

The combination of her back-round and Obama's determination to give control of the USA to energy companies, making us like an Arab State, is very concerning. Maybe she is a born-again environmentalist after working for big oil and then in banking, but what qualifies her over people who have life-long careers in environmental areas? I want to be positive and optimistic, but this doesnt seem quite right. Since the DOI is the reason oil drilling has not occurred on the Artic NWR, I wouldnt be surprised if we see drilling there before Obama leaves office. It will play out something like this: Gasoline prices will shoot up to $9 or $10 a gallon. Obama will announce a public emergency and a need for change. They will start drilling and gas prices will drop, but not all the way to former prices. The public will accept and forget.