Search the Community

Mourning doves are the number one game animal in the USA. Despite this, there are eight lower contiguous states that do not allow dove hunting. Dove legislation has been introduced in NY since at least 1990, possibly longer. According to the DEC’s website a number of dove bills have been introduced over the years; however not a single dove bill has ever been moved forward for vote. Based on the responses the DEC received to three dove hunting -related questions included as part of a larger survey of small game hunters; the DEC speculates that NY hunters do not have experience with dove hunting and therefore have not generated enough political support for dove hunting. Lawmakers offer a similar perspective which resonates with that of the DEC. According to one high ranking state senator his office receives many letters and/or petitions opposing dove hunting and very seldom hears from anyone who supports dove hunting. This same senator was convinced by anti-hunters who have contacted him, that doves were not edible. We have created an online presence using email newsletters, a website, two Facebook pages, a YouTube channel, and two Google Plus pages. The purpose of these online presences is to inform policy makers, build political support for dove hunting, engage & organize aspiring dove hunters and encourage ethical hunting practices, attitudes and behaviors. The link to the NY Dove Hunting website is www.NYDoveHunting.weebly.com. From there; you can go to our Facebook, YouTube and Google Plus pages. A focused and factually correct response from sportsmen to lawmakers, newspapers and the DEC can drive the establishment of a mourning dove hunting season. Our online articles provide talking points so that sportsmen can address the controversy surrounding dove hunting in a focused and factually accurate manner. NY Dove Hunting also aims to interest hunters and aspiring hunters in dove hunting. NY Dove Hunting also functions to organize, engage and keep hunters informed about dove hunting initiatives. To accomplish these functions, we need sportsmen to join our network by liking our Facebook pages and subscribing to our YouTube Channel.

We just launched a you tube channel. Please subscribe and share widely. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6A4K7i7Ur9AnH20PweuZsg

Please click on the link below and watch the propaganda video against dove hunting created by an anti hunting group modeled after the HSUS campaign against dove hunting. The HSUS has used a short list of talking points to successfully block dove hunting throughout the United States for many years. In 2003 the state of Michigan established a dove hunting season (with the help of Ted Nugent an avid dove hunter). In 2006 the HSUS repealed the season by summarizing their website page devoted to anti dove hunting into this childish cartoon. The HSUS spent millions of dollars airing this video in segments on Michigan public television in the months leading up to the general election on which a referendum to ban dove hunting was put on the ballot by a petition the HSUS initiated. Luckily NY is not a "referendum state"; however the arguments made against dove hunting in this video, which are the same as the ones on the HSUS website, have been the exact ones they have succeeded with nationwide many times. These arguments have been used and will again be used to influence public opinion and thereby politicians by blasting them in news media, public comment, and to letters to politicians, local newspapers, and the DEC. Sportsmen can redirect public opinion with the correct response to these arguments. However the operant word is "correct". If response from the sporting community must be factually correct. Those facts can be found on NY Dove Hunting's website, face book page, and You Tube Channel. Every premise against dove hunting set forth by the HSUS and this video commercial have been addressed in NY Dove Hunting's online sites. If sportsmen do not bother to respond to editorials and such, or respond incorrectly, public opinion will be influenced against dove hunting. http://youtu.be/4jt6ebPd54U

Hopefully this PDF attachment will work. This flyer can be printed out and put at hunting clubs, sporting good stores, especially license agents. Please do this, there is still many people we are not reaching. Until we get the Outdoor Writers Association and the NY Outdoor Writers Association to work with us, this is going to be an uphill battle. Until then, use what tools are available.

Here is another page we created to debunk the claims that hunters do not eat doves, waterfowl and game in general. It also has some pretty good recipes and blurbs related to cleaning, storing, and otherwise processing game birds. It has been slow, but as the page grows we will publish articles more frequently. Also: some FB pages do not use the 'notes' section. We do use the notes section, so click on it for more articles, that applies to our other pages as well. Also, if you are going to help in the push for a dove hunting season, and the issue of eating doves is raised, refer them to this FB page as well as our YT Channel. All of our links are in my profile on this site. Please subscribe to all of them and recommend them among your network of hunting friends as well as to policy makers. Cooking Doves and other Game Birds Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CookingDovesOtherGamebirds

http://youtu.be/T_vGhylryWM

https://www.soils.org/publications/nse/articles/42/1/185/

NY Dove Hunting has a new website. We launched a website to go along with our face book page. Please take a look, tell others about it and also like out face book page. Here is the link: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/

In September, 2013, we announced that Ontario, Canada, set a mourning dove hunting season. Scott Petrie, who is a member of our page and Executive Director of Long Point Waterfowl, was active in establishing the policy. Long Point Waterfowl is a migratory bird research organization. Here is a link to the report he compiled in support of dove hunting in Ontario. http://longpointwaterfowl.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CWS-ON-MODO-Popn-Assessment-Sept-2011.pdf

Pheasant Controversy is Growing As awareness about the negative impacts of invasive species is increasing, anti-hunters are using this legitimate issue to invalidate conservation efforts as well as stocking of game birds that are not native, yet not deemed a deleterious invasive species. Far from invasive, their populations are actually contracting like the native non game they share habitat niches with. That is why the criticized conservation efforts are stepped up. And the same conservation projects that help ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, and chukar partridge, also help other grassland or early successional species, a few examples being: bluebirds, song sparrows, field sparrows, goldfinches, red-winged black birds, common yellow throat, eastern meadowlark, grasshopper sparrow, bobolink, savannah sparrow, and Henslow’s sparrow. First let’s discuss conservation. In NY the Wild Pheasant Focus Area; which is slightly smaller than Pennsylvania’s Wild Pheasant Recovery Area; consists of 150,000 acres and spans 13 counties. For reference New York City is 195,000 acres. Not only do a variety of species benefit from the 150,000 acres of somewhat contiguous habitat of the Wild Pheasant Focus Area; but the DEC also maintains early successional habitat on state wildlife management areas elsewhere in the state, including over 120 sites used for the state pheasant stocking program. Maintenance of habitat diversity is not restricted to pheasant release sites, however pheasant hunting provides both funding and political support for many projects and it is arguable that without pheasant hunters the state would have less early successional habitat. Keep in mind the word ‘maintenance’ is operant. To maintain early successional habitat it must be disked, mowed, or burned every three to four years. It is actually desirable to mow every year in the late summer, generally after wildlife have reared their young. Not only does this facilitate hunters and their dogs, but by removing the browning cool season grasses it stimulates warm season grasses and bee-loving flowers. Maintenance is not free and though critics of hunting continue to claim that conservation revenues generated by hunting are insignificant, the fact is that they are vital to conservation funding. The vast pool of knowledge about wildlife and habitat we have would never have been obtained in the first place if it was not for hunter’s dollars, a sadly overlooked fact. Note: It would be impossible for any alien species not to compete at all with native species. Almost no impact has been suggested for chukar and gray partridge. Pheasant roosters have been known to harass Prairie Chickens when on their leks and hen pheasants known to lay their eggs in Prairie Chicken nests. This will be an issue anti-hunters will grand-stand on, because recently (April 2014) the Lesser Prairie Chicken became a federally listed species. However, the issue with Prairie Chickens has always been habitat. Conversion of native grasslands (prairie) into range land and crop land did not have as much effect on the ring-necked pheasant or the prairie chicken’s cousin; the sharp-tailed grouse. Other factors have entered recently as well. In 2013 the amount of land enrolled in the conservation reserve program shrunk from the size of the state of NY to the size of the state of Delaware. A lot of this had to do with the demand for corn for ethanol production, but also uncertainty with the Farm Bill status. At the same time another major landscape change occurred with the expansion of the natural gas and oil industry which fragmented the little remaining native grassland prairie chickens require. The moral of the story is that ring-necked pheasants may have impacted prairie chickens, but other factors surfaced with much bigger impacts. Also refer to the following links for information about the Federal Injurious Species List and the Lacey Act: http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/ http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/current_listed_iw.pdf http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/pdf_files/Current_Listed_IW.pdf

What You Should Know By Now Engaging the Outdoor Writers Association and the NY Outdoor Writers Association is essential to building what the DEC describes as “political support for dove hunting”. However, keep in mind only hunters read what is published by outdoor writers and that is probably a good thing because they are not always politically or biologically correct. The outdoor writers can sell the sporting community on the idea that dove hunting is great recreation, but that is the extent of their usefulness. What is foremost is that to engage the outdoor writers requires sponsoring quality guided hunts for them to sample dove hunting. In other words, either take them hunting out of state or send them on a guided hunt that we pay for. Notice the word ‘quality hunt’ is operant. The absolute necessity to foster broad-based public support for dove hunting. As stated above, only hunters read the outdoor writer’s junk. The public majority is who will decide if dove hunting occurs in NY; not the sporting minority, nor the anti-hunting community. Outreach must also be aimed at the public at large and that requires different writing styles and content than the hunting rags. While we are doing this, the anti-hunters will also be trying to influence public opinion, however they will be better funded and more organized. Awareness of the negative impact on broad-based support and influence on public opinion caused by certain hunter behaviors, political stances, attitudes, beliefs, statements, photographs, and videos. How anti-hunters use newspapers to influence public opinion and politicians. When to write to newspapers and when NOT to write to newspapers. How to search the internet for newspaper editorials relevant to dove hunting. Rebuttals to the anti-dove hunting rhetoric of the HSUS, which is the Humane Society of the United States, the world’s largest and heavily funded anti-hunting organization which is very active in the state of NY and the major player in blocking dove hunting in many states for over 40 years. What a DEC Plan is… What a public comment period is… Some DEC regulations require a legislative change or approval and others do not. A legislative change requires a bill… What a bill is… What a bill hearing is and how your communication with the state senate and assembly members can be used in hearings. What the two environmental conservation committees are, who are the chairpersons and the other members, and their contact information.

If you convince a senator or assemblyman the facts are important they will ask the bill sponsors some tough questions and try to persuade other lawmakers ... This is why we should write politicians with factual statements.... Its not just numbers and when you don't have the numbers you must have the facts... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c8uOvlIEyc

We have butted heads with sportsmen's organizations and individuals who represent them, about the importance of working with conservation organizations to establish a mourning dove hunting season. Ironically, it was both research funded by these same conservation organizations and testimony by them at the recent budget hearing that is (thee) reason the deer hunters got their beloved crossbow bill passed. Efficient killing of deer fits in with the conservationist's agenda, but in regards to dove hunting they have some concerns centering around target identification and lead ammunition. We have told the big NY sportsmen's organizations that these groups are correct and basically that "NRA Biology" was wrong. We told them it was essential to compromise, but they refused to work with us, putting it lightly. Next thing we know, all of a sudden these sporting organizations adopted position statements to establish a dove season and CFAB is according to their own reporting is " working on a mourning dove management plan". Fine and dandy except we are lost as to what they are going to do with their management plan, they are not DEC biologists or even biologists... We also are glad to see the NYS Conservation Council resolving to establish a dove season. We are not objecting to their "help" or trying to be "credited" - however it is apparent they are concerned someone else might get "credited" with accomplishing what they have failed to do after more than 20 years of trying. However we cannot work with them and not sure if we ever will be able to. So we for now will continue to operate independently of them. One of the things we are asking our network, or members if you prefer, is to look at the following links, particularly Page 4 of the Audubon testimony and Page 7 of the Nature Conservancy testimony, both pages referring to the recent crossbow proposal. It is also useful to read the entire testimony to get a feel for what these organizations are. We need our people on the same page as the conservationists and the first step is to show that conservationists are not our enemy, these documents pertaining to crossbows show that quite well. Here are the links: http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Testimony%20Audubon%20New%20York.pdf http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Testimony%20The%20Nature%20Conservancy.pdf

Timeline 1970’s NY declares the mute swan a migratory game bird, but no hunting season is established. Early 1990s: USFWS creates a mute swan strategy in concert with states in the Atlantic Flyway including NY. During the decade of 1990 NY adopts a mute swan management plan. 2014 NY creates a revised mute swan management plan and opens the plan to public comment through February 21, 2014. In early February around the time public comment was first solicited, various media sources began airing or publishing unfavorably biased messages about the plan throughout the state. Numerous online petitions and letter writing campaigns opposing the DEC’s plan were launched. Local newspapers and the Dec’s face book page were bombarded by letters and posts criticizing the DEC’s plan. On February 19, 2014, even before the comment period ended, and certainly before the plan was finalized and adopted, two legislative bills were introduced which would impose a moratorium on the DEC’s plan. On February 28, 2014, the DEC announced that there will be a revision of the draft plan and another public comment period on the revised mute swan plan, and that because of the comment received on the first draft, the revision will contain non-lethal strategies. This could mean the state is abandoning the goal set among the Atlantic Flyway Council to eliminate the state’s population. Action we took: (What we’ve done = What we want you do) We summarized the process from the start and as it evolved; and made those reports available to our network. We recommended ‘Talking Points’ and created several form letters. We tracked newspaper articles and responded to them in writing with factual information. We participated in the public comment phase by submitting written comment. We all must do this again with the upcoming revised draft and in response to any future mourning dove proposals. In other words, make it a habit… How this ties in with establishing a mourning dove hunting season in NY: Expect a similar response from the non-hunting public to any Dove legislation and/or Mourning Dove Management Plans. Perhaps the emotion will be even stronger for doves, but certainly anti-hunters have gained experience, confidence, and increased the size of their networks during the public opinion battle about mute swan management. Review the timeline and expect things to evolve the same way, perhaps with even more opposition. In the 2014 mute swan management plan, the DEC announced only seven days after the end of the comment period, that they were revising their plan to accommodate those opposed to lethal control. Which we believe might mean the whole plan is undermined, as the goal was to eliminate free ranging mute swans, not “control” the populations. One can argue that sterilization will eventually lead to extirpation, but until we see the revised plan we remain skeptical. Without an organized and coordinated response we will continue to lose these public opinion battles. What could we and/or the DEC do differently? Part of the DEC’s plan included an outreach strategy. However, the outreach must be done before a plan is presented for public comment, not as a strategy of the plan. The first step must be substantial education campaigns directed at the public and lawmakers. By the time the public and lawmakers review a management plan, they have already been exposed to unscientific propaganda. They must get their information about mute swans and mourning doves from sources other than newspapers and animal rights organizations. Each individual sportsman who invests in a little learning can be that other source of information. It is also important to engage other sportsmen in these issues. Inform them about the negative impacts of mute swans and tell them about the thrills of hunting and eating mourning doves. However, rest assured; it will be the public at large, not the sporting community, who decides whether or not the hunting of doves will occur in NY. The DEC's first draft mute swan plan, although there was some divide, had the backing of large conservation/bird watching organizations. Yet animal-rights activists succeeded in exerting enough political pressure to persuade the DEC to not only modify their plan, but likely also to abandon the underlining goal of eliminating mute swans in the state of NY, a goal agreed upon by the Atlantic Flyway Council and followed by other states in the flyway jurisdiction.

Just saw this: In response to the outpouring of public interest in the Draft Mute Swan Management Plan, the plan will be revised and opened up for a second round of comments. DEC is still reviewing the 1500+ comments, but hopes to have the revised draft for public comment available in the spring. A summary of our response to the many questions, concerns and ideas expressed by the people of New York State is being prepared and will be posted on DEC's website. See today's press release: http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/95792.html

Tony Avela: See other Post about him. And the following: Bookmark this link: http://votesmart.org/interest-group/2018/rating/5887%20-%20.UxC4MHmA3IU#.UxDDwnmA3IV Brian Curran Supports preventing the DEC from managing mute swans as per personal communication, via email. Voted For the SAFE Act Narrowly elected last election and will again be opposed by: http://www.friedmanforassembly.com/ FYI https://trackbill.com/legislator/NY/2013/3363/brian-curran http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Brian-Curran/sponsor/ Note: Link directly above does not indicate Curran is a cosponsor of A-8790; however Brian Curran told us via email that he is requesting to be a cosponsor. http://ballotpedia.org/Brian_Curran_(New_York) https://www.facebook.com/AssemblymanBrianCurran http://votesmart.org/candidate/127875/brian-curran#.UxCwt3mA3IV https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/127875/brian-curran/5/animal-rights-and-wildlife-issues#.UxCwuXmA3IV Fred Thiele http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Thiele http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Fred-W-Thiele-Jr/bio/ http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/4279/fred-thiele-jr#.UxC3NHmA3IU http://votesmart.org/interest-group/2018/rating/5887#.UxC4MHmA3IU FYI Supports TNT and maintenance of feral cat colonies Endorsed by Goose Watch NYC along with Assemblyman Steve Englebright Introduced legislation to allow local governments and counties to ban or regulate trapping Joseph Saladino http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Saladino http://votesmart.org/candidate/44187/joseph-saladino#.UxC9c3mA3IU http://lohv-ny.org/events/LegBreak2011/2011LegBreak.report.htm Steve Cymbrowitz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Cymbrowitz https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55177/steven-cymbrowitz#.UxDBLnmA3IU Kenneth Lavalle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_LaValle https://votesmart.org/candidate/4238/kenneth-lavalle?categoryId=5&filter=['V', 'S', 'R', 'E', 'F', 'P']#.UxDCyXmA3IU https://www.facebook.com/kenlavalle

Here are three letters written for the Massapequa Observer, however they can be adapted to other newspapers and/or the content can be used as ‘talking points’. Newspapers restrict the number of words in letters they publish. These letters are 78 words, 136 words, and 214 words. All newspapers will not publish your letter unless they can reach you by telephone, during daytime business hours. You must provide a daytime phone number, your full name and full address. If you do not and/or you do not answer your phone, they will not publish your letter. LETTER 1. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song did not take into account that the rationale behind the DEC’s plan was to protect the nest sites of native waterfowl, prevent overgrazing of submerged aquatic vegetation, and remove one source of water contamination. There are no nonlethal methods to prevent mute swans from drowning native birds, driving them from nesting habitat, overgrazing SAV, and from defecating in the water. Sincerely, LETTER 2. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song was inaccurate and politically biased. The mute swan plan is not about killing swans, it is about conserving native waterfowl. Public comment should be given careful research and thought; it should not be derived from filter-feeding on propaganda. This biased article was published only two days before the comment deadline. Despite the short notice, the article contained information about the public comment period. It is clear that the intent was to influence readers to hastily comment based only on what they read in the Massapequan Observer and not seek any other information. This article was inaccurate, irresponsible, and politically motivated. Sincerely, LETTER 3. [email protected] Steve Mosco, Editor Anton Community Newspapers Massapequan Observer 132 East 2nd Street Mineola, NY 11501 The article Not Ready For A Swan Song was inaccurate and politically biased. The mute swan plan is not about killing swans, it is about conserving native waterfowl. Public comment should be given careful research and thought; it should not be derived from filter-feeding on propaganda. This biased article was published only two days before the comment deadline. Despite the short notice, the article contained information about the public comment period. It is clear that the intent was to influence readers to hastily comment based only on what they read in the Massapequan Observer and not seek any other information. This article was inaccurate, irresponsible, and politically motivated. This article did not take into account that the rationale behind the DEC’s plan was to protect the nest sites of native waterfowl, prevent overgrazing of submerged aquatic vegetation, and remove one source of water contamination. There are no nonlethal methods to prevent mute swans from drowning native birds, driving them from nesting habitat, overgrazing SAV, and from defecating in the water. Sincerely,

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.

Last Push – Exercise the opportunity to participate in decisions about hunting policy and waterfowl management! Three Hours Left, but it will only take 2 minutes... Choose the letter that describes you and email it with “swan plan” in the subject line to: to [email protected] The DEC needs you to include your full name and physical address and specifically asks that you type “Swan Plan” in the subject line. Letter1. I have no vested interest in the management of mute swans however I trust the DEC in this matter and want to be counted as a person who does not have any emotional objection to the eradication of mute swans. Letter2. As a waterfowl hunter I have a vested interest in the eradication of mute swans due to their impact on native birds and water quality. I trust the DEC to make the correct decisions regarding the management of native pests and invasive species, including mute swans. Letter3. As a nature enthusiast I have a vested interest in the eradication of mute swans due to their impact on native birds and water quality. I trust the DEC to make the correct decisions regarding the management of native pests and invasive species, including mute swans.

This is what the DEC means when they say on their website mourning dove hunting will not occur until we build political support for it! Do not let this discourage you from submitting your public comment however! But tomorrow is the deadline! http://www.antonnews.com/massapequanobserver/news/36111-not-ready-for-a-swan-song.html

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.

The word of the week is mute swans. The DEC’s draft mute swan management plan open public comment period is coming to an end on February 21, 2014. We have made an exception for the mute swan issue and diverted from our single-issue mission on our face book page. Within the timeline/wall and the events section there is background information, links to the DEC’s plan, and talking points for your use to construct written public comment to mail or e mail into the DEC. We also emphasize that mute swan eradication is an important issue on its own face; however, our response to this issue is a surrogate of sorts for future response to a mourning dove management plan and/or a mourning dove bill. Not only does it test how effectively we can mobilize people, but gauges our level of resistance against anti - dove hunters because the opposition to mute swan management is the same crowd opposed to mourning dove hunting. Furthermore this opposition uses very similar propaganda strategies in its effort to hinder management and/or use of both species. As a matter of fact, yesterday a far reaching article by animal rights activists surfaced about the DEC’s draft plan. The animal rights article focused on the mute swan being the symbol of romance, much the same as they did with a nationwide propaganda campaign spanning 50 years claiming the mourning dove, a bird indigenous to north and South America is the dove of peace. The real dove of peace, the dove referenced in religious readings, is the ringed turtle dove which occurs in the Middle Eastern region, not the Americas. We also reviewed what is going on with the NYSCC and CFAB. CFAB, according to their documents, is developing a mourning dove management plan. We do not understand how this fits under their function, qualifications, nor what they intend to do with this plan, as they are not the DEC. On the NYSCC front, it is about the same. They listed as one of their position statements, the goal of creating a mourning dove season. However, their current list of active resolutions does not include any thing about mourning doves. To incorporate our organization and then join the NYSCC for voting privileges would not likely further our agenda of establishing a mourning dove hunting season in NY. It would force us to poll our constituency about any and all resolutions regardless of their merit; which essentially uses us to promote and publicize unsound proposals. Not only is that irresponsible it also diverts our time and resources, and the attention of our constituents away from our special interest mission and to the agendas of the same people who have not driven a mourning dove agenda for a half a century. (See “Notes” for further explanation) Notes: Why we do not incorporate and join the NYCC for voting privileges. The NYSCC, or “the council”, as they are known, has a membership which consists mainly of groups rather than individual members. A typical member would be a county sportsmen’s federation. Each “member” is entitled to submit “resolutions” in February of each year. After another meeting in April all the resolutions are mailed back to “members”. The “members” are in theory supposed to poll all of their constituent members and then report back to the council and cast votes on each resolution based on their internal election. Resolutions which are “passed” remain active for three years over which the council “pursues” them. There are numerous flaws with this system which has been in place in NY for some time and is also used in other states. We will discuss two of those flaws. First of all, unless individual members are following the resolutions, or in nepotistic situations, club officers can vote anyway they choose without polling their members on every resolution or ignore the vote tally. Second, this system allows legitimate resolutions to be used to “piggy-back” other resolutions, some which are not consistent with sound conservation. This is somewhat analogous with politicization of conservation and/or omnibus legislation. This questionable system has been cemented even further by the tenet that sportsman must stick together. The problem is still further compounded because it facilitates politicians themselves in three ways. First, it enables the two – party system to manipulate sportsmen and create rifts between them and non- shooting conservationists. Second, politicians serve ex-officio on citizen advisory boards and thirdly, politicians appoint the citizens who serve on these boards. These boards operate in collusion with the NYSCC and the outdoor writers association(s) and thereby a chain, with the various county federations. Reiteration: To incorporate our organization and then join the NYSCC for voting privileges would not likely further our agenda of establishing a mourning dove hunting season in NY. It would force us to poll our constituency about any and all resolutions regardless of their merit; which essentially uses us to promote and publicize unsound proposals. Not only is that irresponsible it also diverts our time and resources, and the attention of our constituents away from our special interest mission and to the agendas of the same people who have not driven a mourning dove agenda for a half a century.

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…

Litmus Test? A real litmus test is using a piece if litmus paper to test the ph of a substance. But it is also used in slang terms to describe an evaluation of attitudes. One example of a “litmus test” is to survey both the incumbent candidates and the challenging candidates about special interest issues, particularly about issues which do not yet reflect in their voting records. Written surveys about attitudes toward mourning dove hunting can access a politician’s level of support or opposition for this issue. Generally when a politician fails to respond to a survey or omits answers to certain questions it is assumed that he/she is opposed to that issue or part of the issue. The results of that survey, including information on what voting district each candidate is running for, can then be distributed to the special interest group or the entire sporting community. The overall sporting community probably would not be interested in the attitudes of their state representatives toward mourning dove hunting and conservation. However legislative bills are often packaged together in one bundle known as an “omnibus bill”. We believe that term may be synonymous with the term “Act” but we are not sure and do not think it really matters for our purpose. Some people feel omnibus bills are not democratic , however. Nevertheless, bundling a dove bill into an omnibus bill containing other bills such as the more popular whitetail deer management issues might be an option. There is still another way to throw around the term litmus test… There currently is a draft management plan for mute swans open for public comment. The nature of the opposition against eradicating mute swans is very similar to the opposition to allow sustainable mourning dove hunting. Although we have been concerned about the negative impact on mute swans for some time and were aware of the national court challenges erroneously citing the migratory bird treaty act of 1916, the new management plan caught us blind-sided and we just learned of it a few days ago. We want to make it clear that the issue of mute swans certainly is very important on its own face and sportsman-conservationists should become engaged in the issue right away, as the deadline for comment is in February. However we also want you to consider it as a “fire drill” or litmus test… We have received very little response to our e-mail blasts regarding the management plan. One person was critical, others sarcastic, and a handful of others supportive but gave no indication they were going to participate in the stakeholder input nor that they were going to relay the information to their network. So here is the litmus test: If a few days ago we attempted the same outreach, but the issue was either a draft management plan for mourning doves or a legislative bill in the state house to designate mourning doves a migratory game bird thereby paving the way for the DEC to establish a dove hunting season, would the participation and the networking be appreciably more?