Search the Community

Any Snow Goose hunters on here? Looking to get into it.

Was wondering if anyone on the forum hunts schoharie county and the surrounding areas? I live in Putnam but have 47 acres in middleburgh and soon hope to move up this way. the amount of geese I see flying over stand while deer hunting is sickening. That combined with my lack of downstate waterfowl spots for duck has led me to search for a few up this way. Any info would be appreciated, if anyone does duck hunt up in the region id be more than willing to tag along!

I've been recently looking into purchasing a new auto loader and have narrowed it down to these two, basically due to the inertia system and the over all feel of the gun. I know that they are almost identical but is the 3.5 inch shell capability worth the extra money. For me it would only be 30 dollars more due to a discount I get through employment. Also any one use either of these guns would love to hear from owners.

Hey guys, throwing a last minute hail mary question out there. Being new to duck hunting I dont have the knowledge that most of you on the forum have. Anyway, I have been preoccupied with deer season and have been lucky enough to get three deer with the bow. Having all the deer meat i need i've shifted thinking towards duck hunting again. That being said i went out and scouted 4 ponds today and saw nothing in them at all. I hit a big water pond, which is about 100 acres and saw in one corner alone about 50 mallards and i couldn't even count the golden eyes and ring necks in the bunch. now my question is if you see a good bunch of ducks in the afternoon do you hunt it in the morning or wait to the afternoon to shoot. this was at about 4 in the afternoon but they were loafing around so i imagine they got there much earlier in the day and sunset and legal shooting time ends at 430. I'm gonna hit the water Saturday so any answers or input put in before that would be much appreciated.

The South Shore Waterfowlers Assoc. on Long Island will be having the 34th annual Duckboat Show & Waterfowl Festival Sunday October 26th, 2014 at Cedar Beach in Babylon 8am-3pm Information can be found at www.sswa.org

NJ goose hunt - RESERVE NOW!!! Hello goose hunters! SkebaFarms has guided goose hunts available now. We are crop farmers located in central Jersey minutes from exit 8 on the New Jersey Turnpike. Our September hunts are over early sweet corn fields, the only open fields around! You know what this means...15 bird limits! Come hunt with us for an unbelievable goose hunting experience! Call Dan for more info (609) 468-7611 or email [email protected].

Being that I am just starting to get back into waterfowling after a 5 year break I have been trying to reeducate myself. In my area of the state there's not many agricultural fields or private land to hunt ducks and geese. I'm pretty much restricted to a few state land areas some holding small ponds throughout. Iv seen mallards, woodies, and divers late last year in a few but never any geese. Anyone on here have suggestions on where to look for the early goose seasons any input would be appreciated.

February 23, 2014 We have been making the unpopular premise that it is wise to abandon the practice of uniting merely for solidarity when merit is absent, to avoid public image issues, bad policy enactment, and because it is a tool in which funnels policy decisions to a relatively select few. This is not suggesting that the decisions for 800,000 NY hunters are being made by ten people, but rather several hundred who are connected, not only to each other, but to various politicians and politically linked organizations. This is not however what this article is about and to understand that we direct you to the archives. We believe however, that we are in fact facing an issue which actually does in impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills, wish to impose a two year moratorium on the DEC’s management strategies and thereby likely require the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research, apparently because the conclusions of existing research do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Senator Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States. These proposals appear to have been modeled after a section of the Federal Endangered Species Act which requires an EIS or environmental impact statement in some situations. Although this federal law is sound in our opinion; the EIS as it functions in the Endangered Species Act, pertains to endangered species facing limited and/or declining range, not deleterious introduced species which are expanding their distribution, hence the term ‘invasive’. The wildlife science community at large, not just the DEC, considers mute swans to be a deleterious and invasive species based on its behavior and known impacts. The designation as an invasive species is not arrived at merely because of a species original range as is being suggested by persons opposed to the plan. As a matter of fact there are introduced species that are not necessarily invasive, however that is not the case with mute swans. This legislation also seems to be modeled after fairly recent hydrofracking moratoriums. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium proposal is much different, while ironically being very much the same… It is different because the two issues have a much different level of complexity and different levels of scientific consensus. Unlike hydrofracking, which has a history of issues in other states which have not been properly addressed, the published research about mute swans is definitive. There are two forms of research, basic and applied. Basic research is the source of knowledge regarding a specie’s biology, behavior, natural history and how it interacts with plants, animals, and people within a community. Basic research is not merely a source of the proverbial ‘fun facts’; it provides insight into a species population dynamics and how it functions in an ecological system. Applied research is problem orientated and is useful in developing management strategies like the ones outlined in the DEC’s mute swan plan. That statement needs to be qualified because it implies that basic research is never relevant to management strategies and that is not accurate. In other states the published basic research is the foundation for concern about mute swans and published applied research has been used in the development of their management strategies. The DEC’s opinion that mute swans are a harmful species in NY and the strategies within the DEC’s plan, are also guided by research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. If one pays attention to the literature citations within the draft plan this would be apparent. We speculate the rebuttal to the above will be that state-specific or updated research is needed, but we challenge them to provide a valid reason as to why. In reality they are not interested in biological research; and will seek social research after a two year window of opportunity to make this a public opinion battle during which they can use their abundant resources to exert influence. That will effectively make this a politically-based policy instead of a science-based policy. The goals behind the strategies which comprise the DEC’s plan are to prevent the loss of breeding sites by native birds, protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) from over grazing, and remove one more source of water contamination. One of the strategies to achieve those goals is hunting. The plan is being mischaracterized by some of its detractors who claim it is motivated by a desire to expand hunting opportunities; however hunting is only one of the strategies within the plan. Before we continue: we are NOT criticizing environmentalism and we are NOT categorizing people who are opposed to invasive species eradication as environmentalists. We consider ourselves environmentalists. A four year moratorium was initially issued on Hydrofracking. When that expired few people knew what fracking was. Over those four years however, legitimate concerns developed because of a history of events in other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. The first moratorium expired and the industry was anxious to get started. They thought they were going to waltz right in and start making money. They even kept themselves busy over those four years engaging landowners and even entering contracts with them to start drilling away once the moratorium expired. They knew they had a Pro-fracking President and a Pro-fracking governor – yes Obama and Cuomo, the two best friends the industry could ever have. The majority of state representatives also supported fracking, many of them endorsed and/or financed by the industry. But anti frackers were now organized and had history, as well as science on their side. Articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, social media sites such as face book allowed them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The anti-fracking movement became a force against politicians and big energy. Anti-hunters are well versed in the use articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, and social media sites such as face book, which enable them to influence public opinion and recruit new members at an exponential rate. The HSUS is extremely well funded and it is very common for them to air infomercials on television laden with snappy, attractive propaganda to efficiently reach masses of people. So what is going to happen if the HSUS and their local affiliates in NY State succeed in passing this moratorium on swan eradication? For one thing in two years without intervention the mute swan population will grow 26 percent and their distribution throughout the state will expand as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive…. Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really… Will any additional research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science. Will further research discover the mute swan is an integral part of the ecological processes in the state? No, it will not. However, we are aware of one study which suggested mute swans enable the native waterfowl to access food, but have not reviewed the study. It sounds like pseudo-science, but we will report on this in the future. However, even if this is true, mute swans impact native waterfowl in many ways and native birds do not depend on a symbiotic relationship with mute swans during any part of their life cycle. In other words, native birds feed themselves just fine without mute swans and have been doing for eons before the swans were introduced to this continent; the only significant impacts mute swans have on native waterfowl are negative ones. What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow the population size and distribution of mute swans to increase, along with the associated impacts; is it will provide anti-hunters over two years to grandstand on this issue, organize, recruit new members, and influence politicians and public opinion. Since an overwhelming amount of research, as well as common sense, support mute swan eradication, it is doubtful anti-hunters will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion, politicians and thereby conservation policy by essentially blocking any science-based decisions which are not consistent with their ideologies.

Note: The following article is of explanatory nature. We will follow up with information on how you should respond to this. The politicians and the antis are making this a soup of complexity, so it is important that you read this article thoroughly so that we can get everyone updated and one the same page. This is evolving tremendously fast and is putting a strain on our time, we need people to pitch in. At this point we are considering a website with a petition and/or form letter generator to keep up with all this BS. Also, we cant make these articles shorter, all we can do is break them up into part 1 to be continued, part 2, etc.. However it does not seem that would increase readership and would result in less people taking the time to understand what we are saying instead of engaging more people. Suggestions or opinions on that encouraged, not here though, PM please. February 23, 2014 We have been offering the unpopular premise that the practice of hunters uniting, no matter what the issue, is not wise; and in addition to potentially exasperating a bad public image and/or supporting unsound policies; should also be frowned upon because it is a tool in which funnels policy decisions to a relatively select few. This is not suggesting that the decisions for 800,000 NY hunters is being made by ten people, but rather several hundred who are connected, not only to each other, but to various politicians and politically linked organizations. This is not however what this article is about and to understand that we direct you to the archives. We are however, addressing an issue that does in fact impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills are requiring the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research which has already been done, because the conclusions do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. The proposals are not linked to the endangered species act requiring an EIS, a sound law in our opinion. However these proposals; which we deem not sound, copy this law to enable a socio-political agenda. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States. These bills, if passed, will impose a two year moratorium the DEC’s mute swan management plan. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium is much different, while ironically being very much the same… It is different because the two issues have a much different level of complexity and different levels of scientific consensus. Unlike hydrofracking, which involves a myriad of chain-reaction problems which are not addressed and have shown up in other states; the research pool for mute swans is adequate and practical application of the research has been developed, agreed upon, used successfully in other states, and produced the desired ecological end result: reclamation of breeding sites by native birds, recovery of submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, and improved water quality. A four year moratorium was initially issued on Hydrofracking. When that expired few people knew what fracking was. Over those four years however, legitimate concerns developed because of the recent history of other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. Before we continue: we are NOT criticizing environmentalism and we are NOT categorizing people who are opposed to invasive species eradication as environmentalists. We consider ourselves environmentalists. The first moratorium expired and the industry was anxious to get started. They thought they were going to waltz right in and start making money. They even kept themselves busy over those four years engaging landowners and even entering contracts with them to start drilling away once the moratorium expired. They knew they had a Pro-fracking President and a Pro-fracking governor – yes Obama and Cuomo, the two best friends the industry could ever have. The majority of state representatives also supported fracking, many of them endorsed and/or financed by the industry. But anti frackers were now organized and had history, as well as science on their side. Articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, social media sites such as face book allowed them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The anti-fracking movement became a force against politicians and big energy. Anti-hunters are well versed in the use articles, editorials, and letters to the editor in local newspapers, and social media sites such as face book, which enable them to recruit new members at an exponential rate. The HSUS is extremely well funded and it is very common for them to air infomercials on television laden with snappy, attractive propaganda to efficiently reach masses of people. So what is going to happen if the HSUS and their local affiliates in NY State succeed in passing this moratorium on swan eradication? For one thing the mute swans population will have grown 26 percent and in addition to increasing their numbers will likely have increased their distribution throughout the state as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive…. Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really… Will any research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science. Will research discover the mute swan is an integral part of the ecological processes in the state? No, it will not. However, we are aware of one study which suggested mute swans enable the native waterfowl to access food, but have not reviewed the study. It sounds like pseudo-science, but we will report on this in the future. However, even if this is true, mute swans impact native waterfowl in many ways and native birds do not depend on a symbiotic relationship with mute swans during any part of their life cycle. In other words, native birds feed themselves just fine without mute swans and have been doing for eons before the swans were introduced to this continent; the only significant impacts mute swans have on native waterfowl are all negative. What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow population growth and distribution of mute swans to increases, along with the associated impacts; is it will allow anti-hunters to organize, recruit new members, and influence politicians and public opinion. Since an overwhelming amount of research, as well as common sense, support mute swan eradication, it is still doubtful the antis will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion and politicians, which will affect future policy decisions on matters less cut and dry, including the morality of hunting in general…

Here in New York, the DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) has asked for public comment about their draft mute swan management plan. In this draft plan is the NYS DEC's strategies for controlling this invasive species. In NY, mute swan numbers are at an all time high- the DEC estimates around 2,200 free ranging mute swans. As you probably already know mute swans monopolize and defend huge breeding territories -entire ponds and small marshes - thereby displacing breeding pairs of native waterfowl. Mute swans actively pursue, harass and kill native waterfowl by drowning them. Mute swans also destroy vast quantities of SAV (submerged aquatic vegetation), and are known to attack people and animals. Please share this important waterfowling issue with your Facebook page and please provide this easy to follow step by step account of how and where to find the plan and make comment: *Review the DEC’s draft mute swan management plan at the following link, pay particular attention to the strategies. Link: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/muteswanmgmtpln2013.pdf *Refer to the timeline and events section of NY Dove Hunting Facebook page for talking points you can use or combine with your own to compose a written public comment : https://www.facebook.com/events/250661385109562/?ref=5. *Email your comments before the deadline of February 21 to [email protected] with the subject “Swan Plan” *Share this post with your friends and groups. *Go back to NY Dove Hunting page and “Like” the page.