NY Moose Hunting Bill

[mike rossi]

Rebel Darling, you are welcome to make any corrections to the following draft of the following article:

 

NY Moose Legislation gives insight to Mourning Dove Matter – Making Hunting Happen.
This moose legislation might be a favorable precedent to future dove bills. It is encouraging that the moose bill has progressed, although it has not yet passed. The senate passed a moose bill recently, but it still needs to clear the assembly and the governor. In the past, both the assembly and the senate have hesitated with dove bills. What the impetus for a moose season is, I don't know (less than 400 bulls in the state, of which there might be less than 100 are mature bulls, nobody wants to shoot cows and yearling bulls so the additional hunting opportunity is minor.
The current moose legislation met the same fate as previous dove bills. It was introduced and then referred to the Environmental Conservation Committees on January 27, 2015.
In June 2016 the bill passed in the senate but remained in committee in the Assembly as of June 16, 2016. However, bills expire in 2 years and the Legislature breaks on June 16, 2016 until the new session on January 11, 2017. That leaves 16 days in January 2017, from the 11th until the 27th to pass the assembly version of the bill. However, the bill can be reintroduced any time after Nov. 15, this year, when pre-filing for the 2017-18 Legislative Session begins. 
Thus, regarding the dove initiative, nothing new has been learned from the moose legislation, except that prior failures cannot be 100% attributed to the species, i.e. the same thing happened with the moose bill as previous dove bills. We are not in any way suggesting that there is not pervasive opposition to mourning dove hunting, because such certainly is one of the challenges. Rather we are stressing the importance of individual, grassroots lobbying of the Legislature to make hunting happen.
The first key to instating dove hunting is to sign our petition and get others to sign as well. The second key; is to cooperate with the periodic online surveys and form letters NY Dove Hunting distributes. The third key is to is to learn the facts about mourning doves and dove hunting and take the initiative to  independently develop a rapport with as many of the 212 members of the Legislature you can and advocate for dove hunting. Contrary to popular belief, you should contact the entire Legislature, not just those who represent your voting district or favored political party. As a matter of fact, it is more important to establish a dialogue with Legislators who are generally not familiar with hunting or does not have many hunters in their districts.
The issue has been raised about who sponsors a bill, specifically when a sponsor is from the minority  party. In the case of the moose bill, the assembly sponsor was Dipeitro, a minority republican in the assembly. First, Deipreo recently was able to sign over one of his other pro-hunting bills to a cooperative democrat – because that democrat has heard from hunters and she wanted the bill! If hunters inside  her district ( and perhaps outside) were not engaged and/or avoided contacting her because of her party affiliation, passing the bill would not have been an option. A republican can pass a bill to a democrat and vice versa – but that is unlikely to happen if hunters are not talking to legislators – ALL OF THEM. Another factor is Independent Democrats, such as Dave Valesky. The NY state senate, despite popular belief, does not have a republican majority. What gives the republicans control of the senate is several members who are Independent Democrats which tilts the balance of power. Targeting ID as sponsors might be wiser than seeking republican sponsors.
By visiting our website you can obtain information about the dove matter. The website is updated often, and in addition we keep our constituents apprised through a monthly online newsletter and several social media channels. Remember to think: Make Hunting Happen!

Edited June 16, 2016 by mike rossi

[dbHunterNY]

Here is what the assembly website says below. Introduced on January 27, 2015 and held in committee on May 10 2016. Bill is NOT dead. it has not been voted out and it is less than 1.5 old so it has not expired either. Lawmakers break June 15 or so, and do not return until February. So, it looks like it will expire, unless they work over break which they sometimes do. The bill can be reintroduced in the assembly next February if it does expire. Technically the bill is  not dead yet... 

 

Carl Heastie and Steve Englebright are who need to be contacted to progress the bill at this point. Doing so would not be wise though until the majority of the assembly is on board with the proposal - because there is no sense it pushing for a vote if it is going to be voted out. 

 

A03742 Actions:

BILL NO A03742A

01/27/2015 referred to environmental conservation

06/02/2015 amend (t) and recommit to environmental conservation

06/02/2015 print number 3742a

01/06/2016 referred to environmental conservation

05/10/2016 held for consideration in environmental conservation

 

 

latest I've been told is the last session before recess is today.  they were in session starting at 10AM.  unless they return during recess, calling the office at this point won't do much, unless it's a follow up.

[Doewhacker]

I was thinking that perhaps a bill like this gets sponsored late in the session just to look good for the few involved. Nah couldn't be. lol

[mike rossi]

I was thinking that perhaps a bill like this gets sponsored late in the session just to look good for the few involved. Nah couldn't be. lol

 

It is an election year. More bills get passed during an election year, but fewer new bills get introduced according to one source.

 

As we track the Legislature we have learned the last few weeks in May and June every year they push through a ton of bills, as if they want to get their cleaning done before break.

 

This also might be why they have their lobby days for different groups in March and April, perhaps they see who shows up and which bills they are most concerned with. A lot of the humane bills, as well as hunting bills get passed in June. The mute swan bill was in June one year. 

 

So, based on what I observed, they get work done the last few weeks - either stuff they have been working on all session and have not been able to agree on, or other stuff they seemingly don't care about and just want to get it off their desks. The more I do this the more I realize how little I know. However, I also realize the big talkers dont know squat either. Stay tuned. 

[Rebel Darling]

I have tracked the Legislature for 13 years, and run a company on my reputation of expertise.  If there's something you'd like to know, you can ask a question, instead of taking pot-shots.  It's a simple process.  I have answered you time and again, politely, and succinctly.  I can't help but take your "big talkers" comment as a passive aggressive comment directed at me.  I don't talk big, I comment on what I know.  One thing I have yet to hear from you is, "thank you."  If you want to be the biggest man in the room, have at it, and good luck when you meet with legislators.

 

Here's a reply I had written earlier, and was then taken away because I'm busy tracking the Legislature.  As you'll see, part of my comment includes approaching Gunther.  Best of luck, Mike:

 

"Our back-and-forths once again confuse me, Mike.



I described the above political realities because you asked me to explain how I knew that the bill is dead, and because you stated that the bill "is NOT dead."  I originally replied on this thread because BKhunter asked for our thoughts.  My thought is, "the Assembly bill is dead; the issue is dead for the year."



Your follow-up statement, "however it would be productive..." makes it seem like you think that I'm attempting to one-up you, I haven't lived up to some unstated expectation, or we're in some contest, when, in fact, I'm simply replying to your question.



You have an unusual way of responding to information you've asked for here, and on other threads in which I've provided you with information.  I've only replied when asked, and then you reply as if I'm telling you something you already know, even though you asked, because you didn't know...  Yeah, it's confusing.  In the above comment, you write that my take would be appreciated, but you've prefaced that with statements that suggest your mind is already made up.



So on this particular issue, moose hunting, and with the next legislative session in mind, here's what I suggest:

- Approach DiPietro and ask if he'd be willing to give the bill to Gunther and sign on as a Co-sponsor.  Things will not fly, as you've written, with DiPietro as the lead sponsor.

- Many hunters do understand the influence of grassroots lobbying.  NYBowhunters (like 'em or leave 'em) has an effective network and communication strategy.  I'm sure there are others out there.  They are models to be joined, or replicated, and require cooperation and coordination over singular vision.  Yeah, it's messy.
"


 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

There is a huge difference between a bill passed for Moose compared to Dove(Songbirds). They will have paying hunter support for Moose and thats what its all about. They know hunters will support and pay to have a chance at a Bull. To kill Tweety..Not so much!

[mike rossi]

I have tracked the Legislature for 13 years, and run a company on my reputation of expertise.  If there's something you'd like to know, you can ask a question, instead of taking pot-shots.  It's a simple process.  I have answered you time and again, politely, and succinctly.  I can't help but take your "big talkers" comment as a passive aggressive comment directed at me.  I don't talk big, I comment on what I know.  One thing I have yet to hear from you is, "thank you."  If you want to be the biggest man in the room, have at it, and good luck when you meet with legislators.

 

Here's a reply I had written earlier, and was then taken away because I'm busy tracking the Legislature.  As you'll see, part of my comment includes approaching Gunther.  Best of luck, Mike:

 

"Our back-and-forths once again confuse me, Mike.





I described the above political realities because you asked me to explain how I knew that the bill is dead, and because you stated that the bill "is NOT dead."  I originally replied on this thread because BKhunter asked for our thoughts.  My thought is, "the Assembly bill is dead; the issue is dead for the year."





Your follow-up statement, "however it would be productive..." makes it seem like you think that I'm attempting to one-up you, I haven't lived up to some unstated expectation, or we're in some contest, when, in fact, I'm simply replying to your question.



You have an unusual way of responding to information you've asked for here, and on other threads in which I've provided you with information.  I've only replied when asked, and then you reply as if I'm telling you something you already know, even though you asked, because you didn't know...  Yeah, it's confusing.  In the above comment, you write that my take would be appreciated, but you've prefaced that with statements that suggest your mind is already made up.





So on this particular issue, moose hunting, and with the next legislative session in mind, here's what I suggest:


- Approach DiPietro and ask if he'd be willing to give the bill to Gunther and sign on as a Co-sponsor.  Things will not fly, as you've written, with DiPietro as the lead sponsor.


- Many hunters do understand the influence of grassroots lobbying.  NYBowhunters (like 'em or leave 'em) has an effective network and communication strategy.  I'm sure there are others out there.  They are models to be joined, or replicated, and require cooperation and coordination over singular vision.  Yeah, it's messy.
"




 

 

 

You are mischaracterizing my entire statement. First of all, I realize you have more than 2 brain cells knocking around in your skull. But you dont pay attention very well. I asked you to double check what I wrote. I was not taking any pot shots and do not feel you were trying to one up me. 

 

I would be pleased to work with you, We cant pay you, we hardly get enough donations to cover a small advertising campaign. I will tell you this, you can learn from me as I from you. If you dont think so, well thanks anyway. If you are willing to help us out, we are on the web, It would be awesome to here from you. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by mike rossi

[Padre86]

First of all, I realize you have more than 2 brain cells knocking around in your skull. But you dont pay attention very well.......

 

......I will tell you this, you can learn from me as I from you. If you dont think so, well thanks anyway. If you are willing to help us out, we are on the web, It would be awesome to here from you. 

 

So you're asking the guy who doesn't pay attention very well to help you?  

 

And how did this thread on  the Moose hunting bill turn into one about Dove hunting?  I know we are all hunters here, but shouldn't we have separate threads for different topics?

[mike rossi]

So you're asking the guy who doesn't pay attention very well to help you?  

 

And how did this thread on  the Moose hunting bill turn into one about Dove hunting?  I know we are all hunters here, but shouldn't we have separate threads for different topics?

 

Its over your head ... 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

So you're asking the guy who doesn't pay attention very well to help you?  

 

And how did this thread on  the Moose hunting bill turn into one about Dove hunting?  I know we are all hunters here, but shouldn't we have separate threads for different topics?

Sorry my friend but have you not seen this guy in action before?  Every single thread he gets into he turns it into begging for support to start a new season on Songbirds in Ny state. Sad!

[mike rossi]

You and others can say I bring the rabbit around every post all you want. 

 

But the fact is the nature of the previous unsuccessful dove bills is much the same as the moose bill, the poaching bill, and the second crossbow bill. More striking is the lack of awareness about why the first crossbow bill passed and why the second one will be much harder to pass. 

 

Yet, when we introduce a another dove bill, which might fail, the naysayers will come out of the woodwork all indicating the circumstances surrounding dove legislation are unique, which in their mind is logic to oppose it or attack me and others who are seeking a dove season.

 

Well, its not much different. Indeed there are some differences, but the underlying obstacle is  exactly the same.

 

I posted about the moose bill on Facebook with a commentary about how it relates to dove legislation. Someone commented, probably someone who is a member of this site; something implying that dove legislation is not looked at by policy makers, as to take a swing at me (not smart in any context).... I replied explaining to him the correct perspective, and he shut up. Probably just as likely it flew over his head like a dove.

 

Fact is, when pro-hunting legislation fails, there is always one common denominator. Each different legislation has different factors, but the common denominator , is well common.... The same rule applies to legislation that passes, certain elements are always present. 

[G-Man]

The sad part is this should.just be handled by a game department and no vote.needed from.politicians on it..

[mike rossi]

The sad part is this should.just be handled by a game department and no vote.needed from.politicians on it..

 

Many people agree with you about that. However, the next best thing is to engage the issues with the politicians. In theory the very reason the system is set up this way is so elected officials enact the will of the people. It is a no brainer what happens when politicians hear from more anti-hunters or the messages of anti-hunters are more compelling.

 

Instead of wishing for changes that are unlikely we should focus on what is real and might actually be achievable. For example, annexing NYC from upstate NY would eliminate a ton of policy disagreements. However, it is not likely to happen. Similarly it is not likely that the Legislature will hand authority over wildlife to the DEC or some new division of the DEC as you imply (a game department). As a matter of fact, non-hunters will have an increasingly prominent voice in how wildlife is managed and conserved as time goes on. 

 

What is real and viable;  is for hunters to engage with the Legislature, but in a reasonable, professional and appropriate way.