mike rossi

About what I bolded. The approved plan included the reduced setbacks as one of its strategies. Although the DEC approved a plan that includes a 50 yard setback it does NOT have the authority to change the law. The entity with the authority to change the law is the governor and the legislature and to do so would require introducing and passing a bill as any other proposed bill would be processed. I think that likely explains the governor's and some lawmakers periodic interest in certain en-con proposals, including this one. However I have a gap in knowledge and cant reconcile policies or laws which seem to conflict regarding the interaction between the DEC and politicians. The DEC does have some degree of prohibition against legislative lobbying, but how much? I am not versed in those boundaries and would like them defined. I do know in the past a person or persons representing the DEC has said off the record and possibly unofficially that they do not engage in controversial issues, one example being hunting mourning doves. Off course, that is ridiculous, all aspects of trapping and hunting are highly controversial, as is other non sporting issues they deal with. Perhaps the law or departmental policy allows them to engage in legislation only when it involves a matter involving one of their management plans? It isn't possible that the DEC has no say so in conservation, pollution and other environmental laws, where is that line drawn? It seems likely that someone is lobbying the legislature and governor on behalf of the DEC to enable them to implement their set back reduction strategy. If this is not the DEC itself, is the DEC depending on sportsmen's organizations to lobby for proposals consistent with their management plans? If so it can be surmised that the DEC is using suggestions from certain organizations (*) to develop some of its strategies, in part because the lobbying effort and political support is built in. (*) The county federations and the NY State Conservation Council?

Nothing wrong with taking your time, no rush, glad that you think this is a worthwhile discussion. Hope others do to, I think it will give us more understanding into what the heck goes on. I know I have quite a bit to learn...

Okay, that is what happens when you create an omnibus bill which packages separate bills together - sometimes it helps something slide through, other times the whole package gets crushed... Look I am sure the DEC wants crossbows because it would increase harvest where it is needed and it would also boost the conservation fund. Crossbows do tie in with the 50 yard set back , as a matter of fact the section in the management plan regarding set backs indicates cross bows as well as long bows... The NY Farm Bureau would also like to see both implemented. So would bird conservation organizations such as Audubon and others. We have people in the sporting community who don't know the difference from a bill and a draft plan and a plan and why there is public comment on plans but not bills ( "how did they sneak this one through", etc...) and others look at a draft plan and call it a report and others think everything is a state or federal government conspiracy or to get votes... I think this thread is more about why so and so is acting on it rather than start all over with stuff like the effective range of both weapons is the same and drawing a long bow on a deer is no different than firing a cross bow at one and all that. Not only are those premises outrageous they have been beat to death. Virgil, the OP, was pointing to the governors interest in this bill, and I believe that the DEC engaging the governor and the legislature to enable their management plan is where this thread has lead and where it should go... Am I wrong? As a matter of fact, you yourself seems to have a fair amount of political savvy, I would be particularly interested in what YOU have to say about the questions I poised....

Doc, We can go on and on with reasons why this is a bad idea. I don't agree with the DEC's strategy because it further jeopardizes the already tarnished image of hunting and hunters. it may back fire and compel townships to enact ordinances with set backs more restrictive than state law, such as the town of Vestal already has. It can very conceivably create a snow balling precedent and set the stage for a new political agenda with a lot of muscle behind it. We don't need to hash and rehash all the ills with doing this for the benefit of someone else's pest control - let the homeowner buy a bow, get a hunting license, and control his own pests.. I think we need to focus on answers to questions less obvious than the issues inherent with hunting 150 feet from someone's house. I asked them, I would like to go there.

I see it. It was the DEC's idea and the management plan was dated on October 17, 2011 to cover the years 2012 to 2016. So apparently the DEC needs the legislature and the governor to pass a bill to change the setback law . The DEC , unless they changed their mind, would have changed the law if they in fact had the authority to do so. I would be very surprised to learn that the DEC has not approached the legislature and governor with this issue. And it makes sense that they are allowed to do so to implement their management strategies. However, are there really instances when the DEC cannot get involved with legislation or is that just a lie? Some of you out there know the answer and so do the politically connected. Us peasants would like to know as well...

After the DEC develops a draft management plan and before it is finalized and adopted; there is a public comment period or a stakeholder input period. At that stage is called the "draft plan", because it is only a draft yet to be finalized and adopted. Public comment may or may not compel the DEC to modify the draft plan before it is finalized and adopted. I have been assuming this plan you mention has been finalized and is adopted? I was asking you if you were referring to the draft plan or the finished product? The reason I am asking is: I am guessing; that just because the DEC adopts a plan containing strategies which require a change in the law; that doing so does not necessarily give the DEC the authority to implement them without it passing the legislature. I am wondering if a 50 yard set back is one of the strategies in the plan the DEC adopted? If it is, it is possible they need a bill to pass to implement it.

Regarding what you said that is bolded above, was the set back aspect of the plan adopted? Because if it was, it is likely the DEC is seeking legislative approval of the 50 yard setback. It is important we know this because it will give insight into the extent the DEC will get involved with the legislature. There is a boundary to the extent the DEC will get involved with legislation and we should know where that line is drawn. On a slightly similar note, I have an old document with a statement from a DEC employee that the department does not get involved in "controversial issues". I think we are entitled to transparency and clarification of these policies. It seems the only sportsman privy to how those policies operate are those politically connected. Those politically connected sportsmen discuss little other with the sporting community other than what they think and want everybody to support and oppose; and promote interest in the issues they are personally interested in. This has been going on too long and we need to end the cycle, as well as get the information which has not been made easily available to us. FYI: there even is some sort of mandate or policy procedure for transparency in state government. I don't know what it is, but this is something they are required to do, it may even be a legal mandate, but I am not sure.

And they are protected in NY too.

No calling needed, put out some honker decoys and they come in to drown them...

Currently, you CAN NOT shoot them unless you get a nuisance permit from the DEC... In NY they are a migratory game bird - BUT NO HUNTING SEASON HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. Therefore they are fully protected. You can apply to the DEC for a nuisance permit to take one. One of the stipulations in new management plan is to establish a hunting season. Since they are already classed as a game bird, I don't believe the DEC needs to run it through the legislature to set a hunting season. Ironically sportsmen have tried unsuccessfully to designate the mourning dove as a migratory game bird for some time (25 or 30 years at least) which requires passing the legislature. Yet somehow the mute swan was pushed through at some date and nobody seemed to be aware of this. It is also interesting that although the game status gives the DEC the authority to set a hunting season for mute swans, they have not yet done so. However, a hunting season is one option listed in the new draft plan. Within the draft plan it states "the DEC will seek any necessary regulatory authority to establish a hunting season".

Your economic concerns are not accurate and besides I don't recall you balking when several key figures in the sporting community backed the governor's proposal to reduce the price of sporting licenses because they claimed the conservation fund was getting too big. I also don't recall you reacting to the information I provided explaining of the diversion of revenue derived from life time licenses out of the conservation fund and into the state short term investment pool. And what makes someone think feral hogs are a bigger problem than mute swans? Factious question, please don't answer, asked to provoke some thought and self reflection...

That is exactly what has been done for "non lethal" management. Like most forms of non lethal methods, it was a bad idea. As a matter of fact, one contractor who stocked Mute Swans for a community to disperse geese was actually drowned by one when he was doing his rounds to check up on things. He wasn't an older guy either, he was 38 years old and reportedly a "strong swimmer". The first video I listed is about this. One aspect of the new DEC mute swan management plan would prohibit the use of Mute Swans to disperse geese and other native wildlife.

The 1993 mute swan management plan failed because thanks to anti hunters the DEC was only allowed to control them on DEC property, actually only WMAs. The new plan expands the DECs ability to do what they want this time. However heavy public comment by antis between today and February, can again, as it did in 1993, shape the plan that is finally adopted, and thereby again handicapping the DEC's ability to deal with mute swans. All states in the Atlantic Flyway developed and began mute swan management plans in 1993. However, NY is the only state in the Atlantic Flyway that did not succeed in reducing its mute swan population and now has the biggest population in the flyway. Take a look at the DEC Face Book page today, that isn't official public comment, but it shows the buzz among anti hunters about the management plan. The HSUS is encouraging its network and facilitating the sending hundreds of thousands of electronic form letters to the DEC during this comment period. Mute Swans , like mourning doves are one of the HSUS prime objectives - it is these issues they historically win because of a weak response from sportsmen.

Exactly, except some sections of NY with sufficient grass land habitat do sustain wild populations of pheasant without stocking. That grassland habitat is limited in NY and that limits the range of pheasants, therefore pheasants certainly are not spreading or "invading." And, within that limited range, they are not problematic, so they wouldn't be considered invasive or deleterious.

Fifty yards is not reasonable - especially with all the places you can hunt whitetails. I have a theory about the who and why behind this proposal. Much of the houses upstate come with small acreages, say 10 or 15 acres. Whoever divvied up land back in the day was quite the smart arkbart. The houses are on the edges of county highways and the land to the rear is either a hill or mountain - in other words not easily buildable. So they subdivided their land and/or built houses in a manner which attached this "worthless" land to houses giving the owner the illusion of getting a great deal. But the lots are long and narrow with neighbors on either side - not much different than living in a suburban subdivision - except firearm discharge / hunting is not prohibited. I only recently became aware of the culture of pride in taking " deer on your own land" or especially a big buck. I surmised, correctly or not, a good share of states 800,000 licensed deer hunters are pretty much hunting in their back yards. Many insist on sitting on the property line because they think that affords the most opportunity . Others the property is so narrow it doesn't matter anyway. Being fair, sometimes natural fences on property borders do attract game, however. Among that culture or mentality is a good share of the people active in the county federations, NY state conservation council, and even cfab and the FWMB. These people want to "hunt deer on their own land" without cooperating with their neighbors. These are high status individuals displaying the predictable attitude associated with such status. Since a fair share of the people own small land tracts and hunt this way are closer to the policy makers than the average sportsmen, they are pushing an agenda which meets their personal needs and desires. They can care less about the statewide repercussions that will develop as homeowners complain about hunters 150 feet from their homes and/or unrecovered game on their lawns. Before someone jumps down my throat and cites the waterfowl exception to the 500 foot set back , I caution that the nature of that law is not the same and discussing it here would only serve to confuse the discussion about a 50 yard setback for deer hunting. Another thing to keep in mind: at least one town has enacted a setback greater than en-con law. The town of Vestal, which is near Binghamton, requires hunters to be 1,000 feet from buildings. That is verified, and it is also rumored the nearby town of Union has the same local ordinance. A fifty foot set back is very likely to spur townships across the state to create similar ordinances. People who cant understand all that or do but are self-serving have no business engaging in policy decisions and average majority sportsmen need to stand up to this crowd.

The ammunition clause effects the greatest number of people and that is what should be emphasized. And it should be emphasized to the point that "Safe Act" is analogous with ammo back-ground checks rather than analogous with bushmaster rifles. The NRA is great for filing lawsuits and working toward good laws and preventing bad, but we are very weak on the local grass roots level. The NRA cant vote for us and cant write letters for us. Although I have not said much on this forum about the safe act, I did in fact write to the entire legislature about it ( not just my reps) and the governor. I also have been a member and have donated to the mentioned organizations by way of attending their banquets and buying their raffle tickets. What I have done isn't exactly beyond the call, but we do need more people operating on the local grass roots level. The approach needs to be tweaked however. Some of the letters from sportsmen range from being irrelevant to lets just say, much worse. Form letters work very well for the Humane Society of the US; I am not sure why politicians are not as receptive to volumes of form letters from sportsmen. Form letters to the DEC are an entirely different matter. One DEC employee told me that (in his opinion) the DEC does not give as much weight to form letters as personalized letters. I don't doubt him one bit, but I would say a form letter is better than no letter. I posted a video earlier this year of the Crossbow meeting held last May where Senator Grisanti clearly and emphatically stated that writing your state representatives is key to persuading their votes on an issue. Grisanti's statement resonates with what the US Sportsmen's Alliance has preached for as long as I could remember. I notice at least one senator who originally voted for the safe act in committee changed his vote during the general vote and voted against it. That would be Tom Libious representing the Binghamton area voting district. unfortunately his yes vote on the committee contributed to the bill moving on for a general vote and the integrity of his change of heart is questionable... Anyway, we need to move on the local grass roots level and do it in an effective manor, while still supporting national and statewide pro gun organizations. I do want to say though, the NRA and other groups need to stick to 2nd A issues. When the NRA and USSA come out with foolish statements like lead ammo bans are attempts to ban all hunting and similar lies, they are hindering not helping. They not only have a full plate with constitutional law, they are not conservation biologists. They need to stick to their areas of expertise and the mission of their organizations and not delve into issues they know nothing about.

Here goes Kemper (chairmen of the conservation fund advisory board) again touting "access". The old guard in NY just doesn't get it - the first objective in managing wildlife is PREVENTING OVERUSE OF THE RESOURCES. Furthermore Kemper thinks its just grand that some of these construction projects will be paid out of the general fund, for what to give the non hunting public majority a greater sense of entitlement? All the happy horse sh*t about access and I see nothing about the impending loss of access on Onadaga lake and the access issues through out the years on Long Island. Conservation does not equal construction, except when it is a moist soil project. Facilitating the over use of conservation lands, particularly during the warm months when most wildlife are rearing young is not sound wildlife conservation. There is not a single WMA I have visited that does not have sufficient parking and where applicable, some sort of boat launch area or ramp. Maybe some permanent tie out stakes for hunting dogs would be good, in the already existing parking areas. DU and PF chapters can install them for free without dipping into the conservation fund, by the way and LOL... As I have said over the years the park-like atmosphere and the sinage (signs) of the parking areas are problematic and more costly then they need be.

The DECs 1992 Mute Swan Plan was a dismal failure thanks to the lobbying of the Humane Society and the organization one article mentions called goose watch. The population goal was 500 by 2013, however the current population estimate is 2200, which is actually an increase from 1993. Population modeling based on reproduction and survival data, estimates the population is growing about 13% a year and without human intervention mute swans will be eventually be common in all parts of NY state. The population goal for 2025 is zero mute swans in NY state and if the same organizations which have blocked dove hunting seasons for three decades succeed again as they did in 1993 the DEC will not be able to adopt an effective management plan this time around either. I posted information about this in the waterfowl forum, read up, gather some back ground info, and get your public comment in by the February deadline. Don't use a typical "sportsman's rant" - keep it relevant and don't delve into tax, etc... Until we learn to address controversial issues properly, whether it be mute swans, mourning doves, or waterfowl hunting on Long Island or Onagada Lake, we will continue to facilitate the people opposed. The deadline for public comment is February and the antis have already flooded the DEC with theirs.

More: I referred to Honey Well as the corporate landowner, actually they are polluters who are under court order to clean up their mess. They are supposed to return the area to a functional wetland as it existed before they impacted it, however the bike trail was not there and it does nothing to restore a functional wetland system... Racism. Native Americans have had much interest in this restoration and have been actively involved. One of the letter writers published by this Syracuse newspaper made derogatory comments toward the Indians, which I might add were totally irrelevant to ANYTHING... Myself, Cazadora, and other waterfowlers are not happy with this garbage being published in a Syracuse newspaper with a large circulation. I emailed Figura and told him he was irresponsible in allowing those two represent the sport of waterfowling and waterfowlers. I have not heard back from him, big surprise.

This whole thing is already twisted out of perspective. From the information I have, and if its wrong, its because the news journalism is not diligent; is that this Craybas guy is opposed to waterfowl hunting when the warm water discharge during the winter congregates eagles as well as waterfowl. From Craybas' statements as reported in the news, it sounds like he is concerned with displacing wildlife in critical wintering habitat, not that he is anti hunting. He may have a point and furthermore, hunting in what is known as an "environmental trap" is not always as sporting as typical waterfowling. Apparently the point which is going right over the heads of the local sporting community is the issues with the proposed bicycle and walking tail. Craybas is also voicing opposition to this, however that opposition is over shadowed by the hunting aspect of his concerns. Honeywell Corporation is side stepping the issue - bike trail patrons are more numerous than waterfowl hunters and this is a public relations decision favoring the majority of persons, Once the trail is constructed, waterfowl hunting would become nearly impossible - even if this was not within city limits as is claimed. Furthermore, the human activity on the trail would impact all wintering birds, and the removal of large trees for construction of the trail would impact eagles, as implied by Craybas. The truth and the bottom line: The city, along with the corporate land owner - want the bike path at the expense of both hunters and wildlife. I think Craybas is on to something. As sportsmen bicker , confuse, and conflate things, the bike trail will be a solid go...

The DECs 1992 Mute Swan Plan was a dismal failure thanks to the lobbying of the Humane Society and the organization this article mentions called goose watch. The population goal was 500 by 2013, however the current population estimate is 2200, which is actually an increase from 1993. Population modeling based on reproduction and survival data, estimates the population is growing about 13% a year and without human intervention mute swans will be eventually be common in all parts of NY state. The population goal for 2025 is zero mute swans in NY state and if the same organizations which have blocked dove hunting seasons for three decades succeed again as they did in 1993 the DEC will not be able to adopt an effective management plan this time around either. I posted information about this in the waterfowl forum, read up, gather some back ground info, and get your public comment in by the February deadline. Don't use a typical "sportsman's rant" - keep it relevant and don't delve into tax, etc... Until we learn to address controversial issues properly, whether it be mute swans, mourning doves, or waterfowl hunting on Long Island or Onagada Lake, we will continue to facilitate the people opposed.

Does this Cole dude even hunt waterfowl? I thought I was obnoxious... And I am, but at least I know what I am talking about part of the time... If you hunt this area and have a stake in this issue find a different approach to a compromise, distance yourself from the idiot... Take my word for it..

Changes in reporting Rock Doves January 22, 2014 Link to below article: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/rock-pigeon/ Changes to reporting Rock Pigeon 22 January 2014 Rock Pigeon will disappear from most checklists this week, and Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) will remain as the option to use in most of the world. Since eBird is a global system it needs to be consistent throughout the world. In the Old World, where Rock Pigeon is native, most observers draw distinctions between Feral Pigeons (city pigeons, typically with non-wild plumage phenotypes) and ‘wild type’ Rock Pigeons. The latter have become quite rare in many areas, so reporting them as “Rock Pigeon (Wild type)” is of interest. In most of the world, however, Rock Pigeons are derived from captive stock and should be reported as “Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon)” to make this distinction. This includes all Rock Pigeons in the Americas, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, many islands, and many other areas where Rock Pigeons are restricted to urban and agrarian areas and where Wild type Rock Pigeons do not occur. eBird checklists will be updating for a final time this week (22 Jan 2014) to allow the correct options for each area. We will also be updating your records so that they reflect the proper Rock Pigeon type. For most eBirders, this means that your records will be converted to Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon). From this point forth, most area checklists will only show Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) since we want to encourage the use of Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) in areas where only that form is known. Please do not enter “Rock Pigeon” except in rare cases where both Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) and Rock Pigeon (Wild type) co-occur and can be difficult to distinguish. In these instances, all three forms will be available on the data entry checklists. Some instability is to be expected in eBird alerts as these changes take place. This change is probably going to be confusing for some, so below we provide some detail on how to best report your pigeons. A good general map for the occurrence of Wild type Rock Pigeons and Feral Pigeons can be seen on Wikipedia. Note however that lots of Feral Pigeons occur within the range of the wild type Rock Pigeons on that map. Again, note that within the following areas, all Rock Pigeons should be entered using the eBird data entry option “Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon)”: North America South America Australia and New Zealand Northern, East, and Southeast Asia (roughly all areas south of southern Kazakhstan and east of India) northern Europe, except Scotland and Ireland In addition, almost all birds in cities and around farmlands will be Feral Pigeons. Most flocks in these areas contain pigeons of a variety of colors and patterns and this is typical for Feral Pigeons. Wild type birds are likely to be restricted to sea cliffs and mountainous areas and are likely to all look the same: clean gray on the back with two black bars on the wing, a gray tail base with a broad dark terminal band, and a limited white rump patch. Note that some Feral Pigeons match the color and pattern of wild type birds and may not be readily distinguished except by range, habitat, and behavior. Below is some guidance on the two main groups that will be options for data entry for Rock Pigeons: 1) Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) – this is to be used for all feral populations, including those within the native range of Rock Pigeon (Wild type). City birds matching wild type, or even populations of Feral Pigeons that have returned to the wild and returned to wild type phenotypes, should not be entered as “Wild type”. Almost all records worldwide (except in known areas of wild occurrence) should be entered as “Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon).” Records of Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon) will count on your eBird lists and will be summarized under the overarching species, Rock Pigeon. 2) Rock Pigeon (Wild type) – this is to be used ONLY within the native range of the species for birds that match the wild type (wild phenotype). The Clements checklist has 13 wild subspecies, and these are all members of this group. In eBird this is a “form” (i.e., a taxonomic entity not used in the Clements list and not matching other eBird categories) and all records count on your eBird lists and will be summarized under the overarching species Rock Pigeon. This form should not be entered on checklists outside the native range of this species. Use it only within the native range where appearance and behavior match the wild type. Areas where wild Rock Pigeons occur include: Scotland, Ireland, and Faroes – coastal sea cliffs only southern Europe, especially mountains such as the Pyrenees, Alps, Dinaric Alps, Balkans, and Caucasus. The European range spans from Portugal and Spain across the Alps, Italy, the Mediterranean coast and inland mountains east to Turkey and around the shores of the Black Sea; north of there, most birds are Feral Pigeons. Mullarney et al. (1999. Birds of Europe) provides a good range map for wild type Rock Pigeon (which is known as Rock Dove in that guide). Mountainous areas of northern Africa; range continuous on coasts and mountain ranges of northern Africa, but somewhat patchy in west Africa, including mountains and hills from e. Senegal to northern Benin and east to coastal Sudan and northern Eritrea. Sinclair and Ryan (2003. Birds of Africa south of the Sahara) and Borrow and Demey (2001. Birds of Western Africa) have good range maps for the species. Middle East, where widespread in most non-urban mountainous areas Central Asia, roughly from southern Kazakhstan south through western China to the western Himalayas of India Peninsular India and Sri Lanka, possibly east to northern Myanmar eBird also has a third taxon that will be used rarely: 3) Rock Pigeon – this is the overarching species. This will appear in summary data for life lists and also as a range map option (to see the two taxa above together). This may be useful as a data entry option in cases where introgression occurs (localized areas in the Old World) and such birds should be entered as Rock Pigeon with notes that the birds appear to be wild type intergrades with Feral Pigeons. There are also areas where uncertainty exists regarding whether cliff-nesting birds with wild phenotypes are a true wild population or not (this is a problem in Iceland and Turkey, and probably elsewhere as well). In these cases, the “overarching” Rock Pigeon is probably the best choice and observers should not be assigning them more specifically if it is unclear. Again, in the Americas and other areas where they are all introduced, “Rock Pigeon” is not the correct option to eBird your Rock Pigeon sightings. In the below areas birds are all from domestic stock and hence are all “Rock Pigeon (Feral Pigeon),” regardless of the plumage: North America South America Asia, anywhere north and east of a line from India to Kazakhstan Australia and New Zealand Most Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Ocean islands most countries in northern Europe (see European range of wild type Rock Pigeon above)

Avoiding banded rock doves in NY, the similarities and differences between hunting mournings & rocks Both species can be taken in the same feeding, watering, and grit collecting areas. However taking rock doves in locations where they feed, water, or grit in NY may set you up for a violation of Environmental Conservation Law 11-0513. This law prohibits taking Antwerp and Homer breeds which are wearing a seamless band or a ring with a registration number. If you can tell an Antwerp or Homer from any of the numerous breeds of domesticated rock doves you probably have the bird in your hand and you are a pigeon fancier who keeps birds, not a pigeon hunter… Even an ornithologist might not have much interest in the various breeds of rock doves and therefore may not be able to discern what it is beyond a rock dove… An ornithologist can inspect the bird and tell you it’s sex and age, but not necessarily it’s breed. That is because breed, unlike race which is created by natural selection, is created by animal breeders – people, and that may or may not interested a bird biologist… We are assuming here this is hunting. We are not assuming this is controlling nuisance wildlife. The birds are not causing a problem for the landowner , you are not a licensed WCO, don’t have a nuisance permit from the DEC, you don’t work for the USDA Wildlife Services, and you don’t work for the NY City Department of Health… The other assumption is that you are hunting in the state of New York… You can’t hunt mourning doves. If you could you could find both species in the same feeding, watering, and griting areas… But if you hunt rock doves in those areas I said you might take an illegal Antwerp or Homer… What? You say… Then where, how, this is outrageous, can’t be true… Well think about it. I know mourning doves feed on seeds and grain, and rocks feed on grain but I am not sure how eager they are about wild seeds. Both birds are closely related and due to their physiology need to drink and swallow grit at regular intervals… But if you set up on a combined field, water source, or near gravel such as a sandbar, road side, dry creek, or gravel pit, how do you know you aren’t taking somebodies birds out of some race competition? I guess you can get the race schedules, but don’t quote me on this, but I believe those races are long distance. Like they start in Maine and end in Florida. Or California to New York. I really don’t know… So what do you do? What else do birds need? Did I hear roost locations? Rock Doves roost in out buildings, silos, and under bridges… But how do you know if they are not just banded Antwerps and Homers taking a break in someone’s barn? Why do you think those rock doves keep coming back to the same silo every time even after you flush them out and make the benelli go boom, boom, boom? Because they are stupid right? Well maybe but wrong. They nest year-round and both parents raise the squab. And the flocks nest together; unlike most birds, including mourning doves which establish reproductive territories , spread themselves out, and avoid others; rock doves are different and nest in close proximity to each other like the rookeries of cormorants and herons… Now if you still want to hunt an orphan all them little ones, because at some point you will knock off both parents…. I will tell you what you gotta do… But if you break your neck its your fault not mine… You get up on a ladder at night with a flashlight and you net or catch the birds by hand and check for bands. Some birds will fly out but if your good you can inspect most of them. Are any banded? If they are you don’t hunt there… If there are no bands and you still want to shoot rock doves after seeing all the babies, and you will see babies, even if its negative 5 in January they still have nests – you say a little prayer that the ones which flew out were not banded and you come back during the day and hunt the roost, if you call that hunting…

I realized I made a mistake and was not clear about something I said earlier in this thread. I want to clarify that and put it in to the perspective of how it relates to establishing a mourning dove hunting season. (The OP also mentioned mourning doves in the opening post.) NY State Environmental Conservation Law does allow the year-round taking of Rock Doves. However another section of NYS Environmental Conservation Law (section 11-0513) prohibits taking Antwerp or Homer pigeons which are wearing a seamless band or a ring with a registration number. (We have in the past mistakenly referred to this as a NY state agriculture markets law, however it is in fact an NY state environmental conservation law.) This law is meant to protect people who own domestic stock. The said rings or seamless bands are not to be confused with the bands used by wildlife agencies to study and monitor birds. It is nearly impossible to see these bands on birds in flight and, (as we alluded to in the video posted to this page last week on January 12), that despite the language in 11-0513, it is not possible to distinguish the Antwerp and the Homer from the numerous varieties created by bird breeders or even from the ancestral rock dove, nor is there enough genetic difference between any of the numerous races of rock doves to designate them separate species. The only (guess) I have for why this law expressively names two particular breeds, is that perhaps those breeds are the racing breeds and the law is designed to protect the sport of racing, but not the act of allowing birds not used for racing to roam at large, particularly the other breeds with less "homing" instinct that are more likely not to return (become feral). We are not saying to break the law, we are pointing out problems with the law. Although the objective of our face book group is mourning doves, not rock doves, the confusion associated with this law does have bearing on our mourning dove objective. Discussion about this law and about rock doves on face book; is intended to educate hunters, policy makers, and the public at large, that the argument of the Humane Society of the United States, which states the mourning dove is the Dove of Peace referred to in the Bible, is erroneous.