New Setback Rules proposed by Cuomo

[Doc]

Doc,

 

The surveys, as we beat to death already, are of a sample of people, which in theory represent the majority.

Let me point out a direct quote from the DEC's own page.

 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/77233.html

"It then incorporated a public attitudes survey of 5,000 hunters before the drafting of the plan began."

 

Notice that they specifically said they surveyed hunters .... no mention of the people that are actually impacted by the change (residents). So, when you say that the surveys represent the majority of the people, that statement does not ring true with the DEC's own words. That is what I have already said no less than 4 times already and you seem to want to contradict that. I can only rely on the DEC's own words regarding the ground-rules for their survey strategy which maybe has a bit more credibility when it comes to how the surveys were conducted. What are you basing your comments on?

 

So in addition to the biased 5000 surveys sent out only to hunters, they did hold "a series of 20 statewide meetings that drew over 1,000 participants". Good try, but hardly reaching the attention of very many people. I'm willing to bet that almost all, if not in fact all of those participants were hunters.

 

I am not saying that they didn't do their practical best to involve the people (at least the hunting population), but to try to represent that this process gathered the comments or even the attention of anything near the majority of people on any of these issues is just not being honest. And that is all that I have been saying over and over, and most likely will not be repeating again.

[G-Man]

1 Known fact...all politicians are in it for something, your best interests are not the.reason......

[mike rossi]

Doc,

 

Who are you claiming said this survey represents the public majority? The hunter survey was just that - a survey of hunters. It was not structured as a query of the public at large, but of hunters. The conclusions extrapolated from 5,000 hunters is by theory to represent 500,000 deer hunters, not the entire population of NY. The survey was not just one question or a series of questions about an archery shooting set back, the scope was broader and all the questions would have not been of interest or understood by the public at large. Furthermore, If I remember correctly, it is you who doesn't even believe a sample can represent the whole and are generally quite antagonistic toward statistics.

 

As I said, anti hunters have long raised the issue that they and the non hunting public majority, are under represented in policy decisions by state wildlife agencies, i.e. the NY DEC. I do not know what outreach, if any, the DEC made to the public at large or to the public residing in deer nuisance "hotspots". I have already stated that I agree 50 yard set backs may be harmful to the image of hunting and breed a number of issues.

 

I think most of us acknowledge the level of wisdom in this strategy, although some of us agree with a 50 yard set back. We can hash this back and forth to no end as usual...

 

The thread started off with a misleading title. At post 148 I thought we said Amen. Someone then posts, what we all know, that politician's thrive on the vote. We all know that, but it has been focused on so narrowly that without intervention this thread likely would have fizzled out with readers none the wiser. The old husband's tales of the sporting community are generations old, until that cycle is broken we will continue to be under the mind-control of politicians ( mostly conservatives and republicans by the way), and those they appoint to represent the sporting community and manage conservation funds, as well the outdoor writers and  commercial interests of businesses associated with hunting.

 

People who have read this thread carefully gained a good perspective on the policy making process and how they can be involved in it. They also may have learned to evaluate sportsmen chatter more cautiously. I think the thread should end on that note, not start up again that politicians thrive on the vote. Nobody is taking anything away with that they didn't already have AND it changes the perspective of what really played out...

Edited February 3, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

Doc,

 

Who are you claiming said this survey represents the public majority?

Simply referring to your own words: "The surveys, as we beat to death already, are of a sample of people, which in theory represent the majority."

 

If you are now admitting that all of the so-called search for public input and comment were aimed strictly at hunters and not the residents who are the actual people effected by the setback provision of their plan, then I guess we are completely in agreement and that is all that I have been saying repeatedly over and over and over and over.

[mike rossi]

You are mischaracterizing my statement. Rephrased: A "hunter survey" is a survey of hunters. A "hunter survey" is not meant to poll non hunters.

 

What are you saying I am admitting to? I cant admit to anything like that - as I said: I do not know what outreach, or if any outreach, was made to the non hunting public at large. I can suggest two ways for you to look into this however, One way is to ask the DEC Big Game Team. Another way is to look up the public comment for the draft. If the DEC removed it from their website, you can file a F.O.I.L. request and get a copy. As you alluded, the majority of comment is likely to be from hunters, but the level of non hunter participation  seems to be of interest to you.

 

I get your point, that you think the public input outreach did not facilitate participation by stake holders who do not hunt and reside in suburban deer overpopulation hot-beds. I get your point, and I think others do as well. I don't know why you are trying to over shadow the bigger picture to emphasize that point. If the public majority eventually finds this unpalatable, they will speak up and quickly be aided and abetted by local police, state police, local governments, and animal rights organizations.

Edited February 3, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

You are mischaracterizing my statement. Rephrased: A "hunter survey" is a survey of hunters. A "hunter survey" is not meant to poll non hunters.

 

What are you saying I am admitting to? I cant admit to anything like that - as I said: I do not know what outreach, or if any outreach, was made to the non hunting public at large. I can suggest two ways for you to look into this however, One way is to ask the DEC Big Game Team. Another way is to look up the public comment for the draft. If the DEC removed it from their website, you can file a F.O.I.L. request and get a copy. As you alluded, the majority of comment is likely to be from hunters, but the level of non hunter participation  seems to be of interest to you.

 

I get your point, that you think the public input outreach did not facilitate participation by stake holders who do not hunt and reside in suburban deer overpopulation hot-beds. I get your point, and I think others do as well. I don't know why you are trying to over shadow the bigger picture to emphasize that point. If the public majority eventually finds this unpalatable, they will speak up and quickly be aided and abetted by local police, state police, local governments, and animal rights organizations.

I explained what outreach in total that they made with quotes from their own website. I can see that I am wasting my time only to have you not read it or simply ignore it. I believe I have better things to do ..... lol. Moving on .......

[mike rossi]

I explained what outreach in total that they made with quotes from their own website. I can see that I am wasting my time only to have you not read it or simply ignore it. I believe I have better things to do ..... lol. Moving on .......

 

You cited the "hunter survey" AND "a series of 20 statewide meetings that drew over 1,000 participants". Your implication is therefore pertinent to how those 20 statewide meetings were announced or how effective those announcements are.  I don't know the level of effective reach of this strategy, you need to ask the DEC's big game team. I will comment however, that the number of participants is more or less out of the control of the DEC, if people are not interested, they just are not interested.

 

The number of "participants" at the 20 meetings doesn't necessarily indicate the volume of public comment received. Some, probably most, comment is received via e mail and postal mail and many people that show up at meetings listen but do not submit comment. Nothing cited, other than the hunter survey, indicates the proportion of participants which are either hunters or non hunters either. You are actually citing  statements that do not support your point, you need to get with the Big Game Team and get them to clarify that.

Edited February 3, 2014 by mike rossi

[WNYBuckHunter]

Right .... And I assume that your average suburbanite landowner where most of the setback impact is likely to be felt does not subscribe to NYODN, this forum, or any of the other places that it was likely mentioned, which again was the point of my reply.

 

I know what your point was Doc. How do you think they should have announced it? Is there some way that you can see that would have made people pay attention to it?

[WNYBuckHunter]

You people are welcome to believe whatever you need to about Cuomo and his motives, but his aggressive attitude toward these outdoor issues, and his sudden public proclamations on these issues certainly make one suspicious and even convinced of his motives given the huge problem that he has created with the hunting block of voters. I recognize a con when I see it. This guy is as slimy and slippery as they come and believe me he does not really need any apologists to be standing up for him. All these news articles and photo-ops relating to these issues are not simply a case where he is taking a passive reaction to an agency request. Business as usual you have me believe. Sorry, I occasionally am a bit gullible, but really not that gullible. But like I say, if it suits you all to believe what he is peddling, knock your socks off. Myself, I have to call a con when I see it.

 

I havent heard anybody disagree that Cuomo is grand standing with this stuff. What is being said is that these proposals would have been there this year regardless. He came up with no original ideas on these subjects.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Like it really matters. Pubic comments mean nothing when the choices are made behind closed doors long before the public. Be it hunters or non. even have a clue there is something on the table. The comments of the public means nothing to some behind those closed doors!

[WNYBuckHunter]

I think you are wrong on that. The only sure fire way not to have your opinion on a subject heard or not make a change in things, is to bury your head in the sand and say "my voice doesnt count anyway, so why bother". The evidence of that attitude is around us every day.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I think you are wrong on that. The only sure fire way not to have your opinion on a subject heard or not make a change in things, is to bury your head in the sand and say "my voice doesnt count anyway, so why bother". The evidence of that attitude is around us every day.

Well have you ever been involved with a rule or a law that was on the table to be made but was not put through because of pulic comments?  I agree about making your voice heard by someone but 99% of the time it falls on deaf ears. If they say its going to happen behind closed doors....Its a done deal and your voice or mine will not change that!!

[mike rossi]

Well have you ever been involved with a rule or a law that was on the table to be made but was not put through because of pulic comments?  I agree about making your voice heard by someone but 99% of the time it falls on deaf ears. If they say its going to happen behind closed doors....Its a done deal and your voice or mine will not change that!!

 

Ever here of hydrofracking in New York? There is one example...  There was a moratorium issued twice, including one issued a few months ago after and because of public comment. Answer:Yeah, it happens all the time. No closed doors, the law requires "transparency".

[mike rossi]

I think you are wrong on that. The only sure fire way not to have your opinion on a subject heard or not make a change in things, is to bury your head in the sand and say "my voice doesnt count anyway, so why bother". The evidence of that attitude is around us every day.

 

Stake holder input it is not only about a show of hands, it is to gather opinions, ideas, or point out deficiencies in the plan. The agency usually is aware of the controversial aspects of its plan, but stakeholder input can gauge the level of opposition and initiate the development of alternate options to reconcile differences in public opinion. 

 

On the other hand there may be occasions when an agency will not incorporate any stakeholder input it receives for very legitimate reasons. However, agencies will often adopt suggestions which enhance the plan and/or seem to represent the desires of the people - if they can accommodate those desires without compromising the objectives of the plan. 

Edited February 3, 2014 by mike rossi

[Doc]

I havent heard anybody disagree that Cuomo is grand standing with this stuff. What is being said is that these proposals would have been there this year regardless. He came up with no original ideas on these subjects.

Then I don't know what the discussion is all about because while I may not have used the term "grandstanding", that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread. As far as Cuomo having any "original" ideas on any of these subjects, who the hell ever said that his thoughts were original? I certainly didn't, and I don't recall a reply anywhere on here that even hinted that any of these issues involved original input from him. So basically we have just spent 3 or 4 pages of forum space arguing from the same side.....lol.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Ever here of hydrofracking in New York? There is one example...  There was a moratorium issued twice, including one issued a few months ago after and because of public comment. Answer:Yeah, it happens all the time. No closed doors, the law requires "transparency".

Yeah ok..Hydrofracking was never truly decided behind closed doors because all the top dogs behind that door were not in favor. The truth is..just like the safe act...we mean shit to them when it comes to that and our voices mean even less. If they want it done...its done! The only place the publics voice has any kind of meaning is at the booth. So much more in today's crooked govmt.

[Doc]

I know what your point was Doc. How do you think they should have announced it? Is there some way that you can see that would have made people pay attention to it?

I'm thinking mainstream media would have been a good start. I'm not saying that that would catch 100% of the non-hunting publics attention, but if the DEC is going to play the role and try to put on a façade that  you are really interested in receiving input from the entire public (especially on matters that directly impact them), it would be good to make a good-faith effort to do so. What they do with the information is up to them, but at least the info would be out there as to what is being proposed for their neighborhoods. Do they even care? I suspect they do, but can't say with certainty. But of course without the issue even being brought to their attention, I guess we may never know.

 

 

[growalot]

Well I have to counter with...yes we have a say ...to some degree...the wind farms and the hydro-fracking has taught me that...and as far as set backs...the same applies....for push come to shove....Towns and villages can set their own rules and tell the state to pound salt...it is the town board meetings and the village open forums that ppl need to get involved in once your voices have gone hoarse on the state level...

(sp)

Edited February 3, 2014 by growalot

[mike rossi]

I think you are wrong on that. The only sure fire way not to have your opinion on a subject heard or not make a change in things, is to bury your head in the sand and say "my voice doesnt count anyway, so why bother". The evidence of that attitude is around us every day.

 

This is not the first time an element of a DEC plan required the legislature to move forward. Although the public, both hunters and non hunters, typically say the outreach has not connected with enough people, it is a good guess that lawmakers and the governor look at the public opinion data collected by the DEC when they decide whether or not they will sponsor the needed legislation.

[Doc]

Wind farms and hydro-fracking are two very high-visibility issues. These are things that have been heavily discussed complete with mainstream media attention. There also are some very vocal organizations that keep those issues in front of the general public. I doubt there are very many people that have not at least heard the terms fracking and wind farms, and even heard some pro and con discussions in the news or just in conversations with acquaintances. They are not just a minor item buried in the middle of a 5-year game management plan. In fact, if you were to attend every town and county meeting, you would still be unlikely to have heard about a proposed hunting set-back change. So, how much of a say do you really have in issues that are never presented to you?

 

A few pages ago I stated that for many suburban dwellers the first exposure they will ever have to this proposed rule change will be when they are on the phone with the cops reporting some guy in camo and grease-paint hunkered down in the hedgerow grinning back at them. No, they will not have had any say in the issue nor could they have if they wanted to. There is something very wrong in that.

[mike rossi]

Yeah ok..Hydrofracking was never truly decided behind closed doors because all the top dogs behind that door were not in favor. The truth is..just like the safe act...we mean shit to them when it comes to that and our voices mean even less. If they want it done...its done! The only place the publics voice has any kind of meaning is at the booth. So much more in today's crooked govmt.

 

I don't really know what you are talking about - the 5 year deer management plan was quite transparent AND Cuomo and Obama were from the start, very much Pro hydrofracking, as was most of the legislature. Several references where made in this thread about the public comment and hunter survey - certainly no closed doors...

 

The safe act was legislation. That is not the same as a DEC Plan. This is slightly confusing because the DEC can adopt a plan but often needs legislative approval to implement part or all of it ,and such is the case with the 5 year deer plan we are discussing.

 

Before the DEC adopts a (draft) plan there is a public comment phase which is advertised under procedural guidelines as to where, when, and how long it is advertised. I am not sure if the advertisement regime is governed by law but I think it may be. If you don't think the publicity regime is far reaching enough, talk to your state reps and ask them to sponsor a bill to make it adequate...

 

 

Edited February 3, 2014 by mike rossi

[Four Season Whitetail's]

You spoke these words in a post awhile back.

 

 if they can accommodate those desires without compromising the objectives of the plan! (Quote)

 

When it comes to any kind of rule or law these words ring true and mean.

 

If the public"s thoughts and desires are the same as the ones we just came up with behind closed doors, we will listen.

 

^{In today's world the people's thoughts mean very little and will change nothing that those in power have already decided is a done deal.}

^{We just went through one such case with Dept of Ag and dec where the rule/law was in place before there was even a public comment period opened. You would have to be a fool to think you really matter anywhere but the voting booth but as was said before, if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that you think you matter, that choice is yours!}

[growalot]

 

Towns and villages can set their own rules and tell the state to pound salt...it is the town board meetings and the village open forums that ppl need to get involved in once your voices have gone hoarse on the state level...

When this was bought up so long ago I made sure that I mentioned it to ppl in every check out...Waiting room  ect...ect that I went to...I mentioned unless they checked the DEC sites or the news this would pass and then their only options was the town board meetings...and that is what I am doing now as well...There comes a time...hunter or not property owners rights have to be protected..Ppl should be able to go out in their front or back yard...have their  kids and dogs play on their property with out fear of stray arrows or bullets for that matter...with out worrying that some guy/woman that happens to see a big buck in the area may get a bug up his back side about how much noise or activity is going on in an area that is close to your house...Then calling in a harassment complaint..... Having to worry about the blinds being closed or the curtains drawn because someone is so close with a good set of binoculars.....Hey a 20.00 spot in a local penny saver...asking the question...Land owners...Do you want a person in camo hunting 150ft from your back door with arrows and holding binoculars? NYSDEC.com proposed set back laws...

 

Could be worth the money...or notice on a bulletin board...one behind glass...so it doesn't go missing...you can find those around different places....

Edited February 3, 2014 by growalot

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Well is this not interesting!

 

http://commonsenseca...rms-treaty.html

[WNYBuckHunter]

Then I don't know what the discussion is all about because while I may not have used the term "grandstanding", that is exactly what I have been saying throughout this thread. As far as Cuomo having any "original" ideas on any of these subjects, who the hell ever said that his thoughts were original? I certainly didn't, and I don't recall a reply anywhere on here that even hinted that any of these issues involved original input from him. So basically we have just spent 3 or 4 pages of forum space arguing from the same side.....lol.

 

Agreed, Im not sure why it keeps going lol. The title of the thread says the rules were "proposed by cuomo", thats what I tried saying a few pages back hahahaha. I love the chaos reading the written word sometimes causes....