DEC doing Public Land Survey- Better Voice it NOW!

[ATbuckhunter]

Done

[Doc]

Well then have I ever got news for you..... gunfire doesn't have much of a calming affect on deer movement neither, so chances are you wouldn't have enjoyed yourself either way,lol

If you could see and hear the bikers coming down the paint stained tree path, I think you may want to reconsider your public land set up strategies.

Again, I'm no public land hunting expert....it's just my hunch you may need to get in a little deeper than the parking lot or foot paths.

My hunting is done on top of a cardiac inducing hill that is about 1/2 mile of very steep terrain. I then go about another 1/2 mile beyond that. If I go any farther, I'll be popping out the other side....lol. It's hard to believe, but they have hacked trails all over the side of that hill and once on top have created a maze of trails that cover the entire property and are so close that one trail is never out of earshot of the next. What that has done is to keep the deer pretty much nocturnal. Basically they have turned the entire parcel into a bicycle facility. What used to be some prime deer hunting, has become over-run with hikers and bikers. Oh yes, and with the availability of all these gouged out trails, the occasional dirt bike enthusiast illegally takes advantage of all the development. So yes, it seems to me that hunters and the wild areas of NYS do need some protection from the arbitrary and uncontrolled exploitation of state land.

[mike rossi]

I guess with over 8 million acres of public land, with only a small percentage of it being Pitman-Robertson Lands and Duck Stamp Lands, the DEC should abide with the federal policies regarding those PR lands, namely that there are 7 priority public uses, hunting one of them, and activities interfering with those public priority uses deemed "illegitimate".

 

One of the main responsibilities of wildlife agencies is to manage over-use by people. In the current zeal across the country to involve more and more people in outdoor recreation on public lands, while using these new people to mitigate loss of hunting license revenue to fund conservation in the future, agencies have not planned for the future otherwise, namely conflict between user groups and the accelerated extinction of hunting brought on by competing public land uses. Already have some opponents of hunting started tasting blood and are attempting to enumerate the contributions of non-hunters to the various conservation funds, not to compile useful data, but rather use the data for propaganda that they believe, supports their political agenda.  

 

Another thing we must keep in mind. The average person seeking a career in wildlife biology is no longer a male who hunts or has been exposed to hunters and hunting. The typical student enrolled in wildlife programs in colleges in recent years is female form an urban or suburban back-ground who typically does not hunt or even know any hunters personally. The next generation of wildlife biologists will not only exist in wildlife agencies such as the DEC, they will also be the persons TEACHING new wildlife students a generation younger than themselves, in the colleges and universities.

 

 

[Fantail]

Done. Included a mention of this site as an info source. 

[growalot]

Mike ...that's not new it has been happening since I was in collage..sooooo many years ago..just increasing over time....I say good points on both sides...

My kids use public parks in the fall walking/hike with the dogs and biking...there is  a fear there..natural..PS..raised hunters..but I also asked if ppl had hunted two different public parks/forests in the southern tier...and not one person replied with a yes...I can't address public hunting.... I saw the future years ago and bought...but I would think spreading out and summer scouting of little known state lands would help some. Some times percieved problems are due to convenience...convenience leads to crowding.

[hunter49]

Done, Thanks

[Bow Addict]

Done

[NeverSeenNorHeard]

DONE!

[mike rossi]

Look at the link below, is this a good use of conservation funds or DNR staff? Same state that allowed its two-year old mourning dove season to be put on the general election ballot and obviously repealed. If they put their deer season on the ballot do you think the result would be any different?

 

You can see by reading this, that hunters dollars were used for this, and the DNR is addressing the funding in a defensive tone - as if they know its wrong, because it is and they know it. The FWS does periodic audits of each state, it will be interesting how they view it and it may cause Michigan to lose eligibility for federal PR and DJ Funds.

 

FYI: During Michigan's two years of  dove hunting; the state required a dove stamp costing $5.00. As has been common in some northern states, the first few years of new dove seasons have light participation, however there was still revenue generated from dove stamps during those two seasons. I don't believe the dove hunters, including the people involved in fighting for the season, ever were given any accountability for the dove stamp fund. Even if it was only $5,000 to $20,000 - where is it or where did it go? Even $5,000 is enough to fund a small habitat project or other significant conservation-related project or program.

 

Look at this: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10369_64258---,00.html

Edited July 31, 2014 by mike rossi

[EspressoBuzz]

I do-ed it!

Edited July 31, 2014 by EspressoBuzz

[philoshop]

I've been heard from.

[jrm]

 

The only time I use NY public land is for non hunting related recreational activities so that's what I based my answers on.

I am far from being an anti-anything, or a non hunter, but this reply makes it sound like my input is coming from hunter enemy #1.

Hunters need to quit separating themselves from the pack, and learn to share the lands available with everyone, to enjoy whatever outdoors activities they wish.

 

Everyone wonders why hunters run into so many hurdles trying to secure permissions to private lands and perhaps open new public grounds, when their narrow minded approach only accommodates themselves.

 

IMO- the non hunting outdoors enthusiast is likely to be more understanding of sharing public grounds with hunters, than hunters are willing to accept the fact that non hunters have just as much right to enjoy their activities as well.

 

 

I agree that hunters - and all groups - should adopt a more "multi-use" philosophy. I can't speak for hunting groups, but I do know that there are some other groups who actively oppose shared use of public land/trails.

 

In addition to hunting, I am involved in horseback riding. We run into some real problems with trail use. Due to many factors (all of which can proved fallacious) we often get relegated to "horse only" trails. There is a big reluctance to shared use. It is possible that a little of that comes from the horse community, but the real push is from other groups. The problem being that these other groups (hikers and mountain bikers) have bigger, or at least more organized, groups. 

 

You can bet that some of these types of "single-use" groups will come together, coordinate and inform their members about this survey. Their organizational and communication skills will be helpful in skewing the results.

 

Aside from this, the survey itself is flawed. It also points to an issue which hunters and equestrians have in common. Some hunters normally only hunt private land. (Just as some equestrians normally only ride private trails or arenas). Based on this survey, all those hunters would not indicate they use public lands for this purpose. While technically correct, any move to lessen the ability to hunt on public lands would affect all hunters. Yet the move to do so would be "justified" based on this survey because it doesn't account for hunters who don't regularly use public land.

 

Take the survey. If you are not comfortable checking "hunting" as one of your uses, make sure to indicate something about that in the notes section.

 

Get friends to do the same. While many positive responses are not guaranteed to work in our favor, the _lack_ of a significant number of responses will almost certainly work against us.

Edited July 31, 2014 by jrm

[mike rossi]

^{In my opinion, the state should model its public land use policies after the Federal Refuge Improvement Act when the public lands in question were acquired, managed, or if they are research sites funded with sporting license revenue and/or Pittman-Robertson or Dingel-Johnson Federal Aid to Wildlife and Fisheries Restoration Grant Funds. (This is the same federal funds you all have heard about). Below is how the USFWS is to handle multi-use on National Wildlife Refuges as handed down as law from Congress. Link to the complete document is:  http://www.fws.gov/refuges/policiesandbudget/HR1420_qsas.html}

 

^{Question: What direction do the amendments to the Administration Act give regarding uses of the Refuge System?}

^{Answer: The legislation tells us that the primary use of refuges is to fulfill the mission of the System as well as the purposes for the individual refuges. The legislation identifies wildlife dependent recreational uses including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation as the priority general public uses of the System. The legislation establishes these wildlife-dependent recreational uses as "legitimate and appropriate" public uses of the Refuge System where they are compatible with the Refuge System mission and the purposes of individual refuges. Quoting the Committee Report: "Because priority uses like hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and environmental education are dependent upon healthy wildlife populations, they are directly related to the mission of the System and the purposes of many refuges. If our refuges and the Refuge System are managed well, then these priority uses will, in turn, prosper into the future." It states that these uses should receive priority consideration over other public uses in planning and management within the System. It also states that these priority public uses should be facilitated where compatible but does not mandate them.}

 

^{Question: What about uses that are not the priority public uses?}

^{Answer: The legislation does not preclude the Service from allowing compatible uses other than those identified as priority public uses. However, the legislation is clear that each refuge shall be managed to fulfill the mission of the System, as well as the specific purposes for which it was established. The legislation also directs that the Service give enhanced consideration to priority public uses over other general public uses in planning and management. In other words non-priority public uses should only be considered after the System mission, refuge purposes, and priority public uses have been sufficiently addressed.}

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by mike rossi