Search the Community

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.

Note: The following article is of explanatory nature. We will follow up with information on how you should respond to this. The politicians and the antis are making this a soup of complexity, so it is important that you read this article thoroughly so that we can get everyone updated and one the same page. This is evolving tremendously fast and is putting a strain on our time, we need people to pitch in. At this point we are considering a website with a petition and/or form letter generator to keep up with all this BS. Also, we cant make these articles shorter, all we can do is break them up into part 1 to be continued, part 2, etc.. However it does not seem that would increase readership and would result in less people taking the time to understand what we are saying instead of engaging more people. Suggestions or opinions on that encouraged, not here though, PM please. February 23, 2014 We have been offering the unpopular premise that the practice of hunters uniting, no matter what the issue, is not wise; and in addition to potentially exasperating a bad public image and/or supporting unsound policies; should also be frowned upon 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 is 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 are however, addressing an issue that does in fact impact the sporting community universally. That issue is senate bill 6589 and assembly bill 8790. These bills are requiring the DEC to duplicate an enormous amount of research which has already been done, because the conclusions do not support the political agenda of anti-hunters. The proposals are not linked to the endangered species act requiring an EIS, a sound law in our opinion. However these proposals; which we deem not sound, copy this law to enable a socio-political agenda. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Tony Avella, is endorsed by the HSUS, the largest and wealthiest anti-hunting organization in the United States. These bills, if passed, will impose a two year moratorium the DEC’s mute swan management plan. We agree with the two consecutive moratoriums passed and imposed on hydrofracking in NY to gather more state-specific information. This moratorium 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 involves a myriad of chain-reaction problems which are not addressed and have shown up in other states; the research pool for mute swans is adequate and practical application of the research has been developed, agreed upon, used successfully in other states, and produced the desired ecological end result: reclamation of breeding sites by native birds, recovery of submerged aquatic vegetation or SAV, and improved water quality. 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 the recent history of other states which do allow fracking. Environmentalists organized a campaign against fracking. 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. 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 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 the mute swans population will have grown 26 percent and in addition to increasing their numbers will likely have increased their distribution throughout the state as well – remember, conservation issues are time-sensitive…. Can any new research be completed in two years? No, not really… Will any research develop any alternative conclusions or strategies? We can’t see how that is possible with legitimate science. Will 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 all negative. What a two year moratorium will do, however, besides allow population growth and distribution of mute swans to increases, along with the associated impacts; is it will allow anti-hunters to 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 still doubtful the antis will be able to ultimately block this. However, they will have increased their following and thereby their ability to influence public opinion and politicians, which will affect future policy decisions on matters less cut and dry, including the morality of hunting in general…

On the DEC’s social media today Jeffrey A Frick Will you just kill them like you want to kill the swans? Lynn Tricia Its called birth control on the population Remy Vicious so do mute swans. please desist with your cruel & unnecessary proposal to kill them. they can be controlled by spaying they needn't be "culled" they have been here hundreds of years with minimal impact & interact peacefully with other waterfowl like canadian geese & mallard ducks. i have lived by or in the brooklyn waterways all my life. swans do not tread on muddy marsh grasses they're too heavy to do so. conserve our wildlife do not destroy it! the overwhelming preponderance of park visitors are there to enjoy nature & wildlife & are not hunters. do not pander merely to hunters. there isn't sufficient evidence that your plan to "cull" all mute swans fron nys by 2025 will be in any way beneficial to our waterways. it certainly will not be a boon to park tourism! Christian Di Lalla PREPARE FOR CIVIL WAR IF YOU KILL SWANS 6 people like this. James R. Sullivan As wildlife Conservationist i am very upset they want to kill the sawns on long island. we need to stop killing wildlife in the state of new york. it seems like all we talk about is killing wildlife. NYS picks a Animal they do not want in new york state and than we go and create hunting season 5 people like this. Bob Rose Invasive species such as the MUTE swans and the wild pigs that are now part of our landscape, ruin habitat and are in direct competition with our native species. To the folks that are posting against this- are you aware there are actually d...ifferent species of swans in North America? NY is the only state in the Eastern flyway that has not met the goal of the Mute swan population reduction. Before you dig you heels in with an emotional response, I encourage you to read DEC's 11 page report.See More Diane Prokop Chatterton I heard from Channel 12 News that you are going to shoot the swans on long island. Instead of doing this terrible act, why don't you thin out their eggs. As far as these beautiful swans attaching anyone, I have been to these parks many ti...mes and I have never ever seen these birds attaching anyone. I do wildlife photography and go to these parks a lot. When people bring their dogs to the park, I've seen their dogs attack these birds all the time but does that mean we are going to put down these dogs, of course not. Birth control is more the answer and not a massive killing of a beautiful swan.See More 9 people like this. Carla Jean Page SHAME ON YOU FOR MURDERING SWANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MURDERERS!!!!!!!! 5 people like this. Adam Silber this agency is exactley whats wrong with governement. does nothing but kill kill kill Jennifer Lysogorski likes this. Ryan Reading There crooked as a 2 dollar bill Walter C. PlumeKilling animals like swans is not managing them!!!! You need to be dismantled!!!! The foxes are guarding the hen house. Shame on you!!!!!!!!! Sue Miller likes this. Amazon CrackerI think the planned massacre of the mute swans is horrifying! 2 people like this. Joan Patricia Steinacher-Napolitano totally agree. January 17 at 6:24pm · Like · 1 Yvonne Kleine I do believe the Lord God is weeping at our constant brutality and folly. This is animal cruelty of the vilest sort. · Like · 2 Sue MillerThe killing of Mute swans across America is one of the most despicable hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American tax payer. To even consider spending tax payers hard earned dollars on this in the worst economy is unacceptable. This killing of... an ENTIRE SPECIES is based upon monetary gain & complete disregard for sound environmental practices. The Killing or proposal to kill Mute swans is taking place in New York, Michigan, Maryland, N.J. & other states. The Mute swans are currently being killed because there is no "Trophy Waterfowl" for hunters .The excuses for killing Mute swans is that they 2 people like this.

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

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)

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?

Search You Tube for this title: Native & Introduced North American Doves Doves - Pigeons - Wild - Domestic - Feral