Jump to content

Hunting Policy  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the NY legislature developing policy regarding the social aspects of hunting which is sustainable?

  2. 2. Is the NY legislature developing policy regarding the biological aspects of hunting which is sustainable?

  3. 3. In an average year does the proposed hunting policy reflect the desires of the majority of hunters or just a vocal or connected few?

  4. 4. When it comes to hunting policy, do lawmakers practice "KISS"?



Recommended Posts

This was just posted by the NY Senate on youtube. I suggest watching the whole video, but in segments, since it is over 7 hours long. For example I watch one hour an evenening for 7 days. Do not skip over discussions which do not interest you because you can get a feel for each assembly and senate members attitude which is valuaeble intell.

I would like to discuss this in segments as well. Particularily interesting is questions to DEC commissioner Martens from Mark Grisanti. Grisanti is the chairman of the senate environmental conservation committee. Grisanti refused to forward S-6968, the NY Dove Bill for two years allowing the bill to expire to the delight of the HSUS. The stated justification of the dove bill was to increase the states conservation fund. Grisanti did not discuss doves, but he did say that the conservation fund is so large that license fees should be reduced. No he didnt say use the money, he said lower fees so the fund depletes. The kicker is the next thing he asks about is the possible loss of federal conservation funds. If you know anything about these federal funds you know that these are grants which a state or organization applies for on a somewhat competitive basis. The state or organization's conservation funds are matched three to one. For example if the state applies one million dollars toward a project, the FWS chips in an additional 3 million. So Grisanti wants to drain the states conservation fund, but yet wants federal grants? This is just an "illusion of action" because the state cannot access its share of federal wildife funds unless it has an approved project proposal and its share of matching funds.

Another point is concern with the hatcheries and the state pheasant farm. I hunt released pheasant and am glad that this program is in good shape, despite that NY got sued a few years ago by the HSUS to abolish released pheasant hunting - yeah I know nobody heard about that, but I will be reporting on that at a latter date.What is remarkable about the hatchery/farm concern is that state and federal conservation funds can create natural hatcheries/farms by habitat enhancements - a fundemental purpose of such funds. Our state has become so disconnected to that and the way this topic flowed it should have biologists shaking their heads.

Please watch this entire video in segments and participate in productive discussion in the next several weeks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you watch the video into the middle? Later three reps from the NYSCC, the CFAB, and the FWMB testified. A couple of hours later Kemp, Parker, and the other guy from the FWMB testify that the DEC is paying staff who do not function in wildlife and fisheries with the CF . They also said (and I dont agree) that the CF should not be used to remove invasive species. The three reps feel that sportsmen are footing the bill for non hunting/fishing expenses and with less staff on the payroll that the fund is being taken advantage of. Sounds like the NYSCC asked Grisanti to lower license fees and thats why Grisanti asked Commissioner Marteens. Martens answered straight out that the DEC does not plan to lower license fees.

I agree that license fees should not be lowered. Invasive species removal definetly is an appropriate use of the CF and the idea it is not is mere "NRA Biology". The argument that because sportsman did not cause the invasive problem that the CF should not be used for invasive species projects is ridiculous and those kinds of ideas characterize the problem with the NYSCC, FWMB, and the CFAB.

I am not sure and am going to check on it, but I am skeptical that the CF is used for payroll. Even if it turns out to be accurate, I wouldnt trust their judgement about which employees are working in the capacity of wildlife and fisheries biology. Don't confuse the matters, but federal conservation funds can be used for payroll, but only for temporary staff assigned to a specific approved project.

Lot more to discuss about this hearing, what else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am retired with a avery flexible schedule, and I have to admit that spending 7 hours on just one of the many very important issues that affect every agency and legislative body is pretty much impossible. You can spend 7 hours watching or reading or researching each and every item of business that even just one of these agencies is involved with, I suspect that you are having a problem establishing a life....lol.

The unfortunate thing is that in order to be a well informed individual, this is the kind of thing you have to do. But the world has become so complex that it is not feasible to become expert on even one of these kinds of issues.

I'm probably not being all that clear, but I maintain that when you ask people to spend 7 hours on just one subject, you are unlikely to get a whole lot of cooperation. There needs to be some synopsis or other shortcut to the info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc,

First of all, you can listen to this without actually watching it.(I listened to it while fleshing & stretching thawed out pelts.) Although if anyone is seriously thinking about engaging any of the lawmakers, agency heads, committee reps, or speakers for special interest organizations who testified at this hearing; it is helpful to observe their body language, see what they look like, get a general feel for who they are communicating with or who they feel is honest and believable. Or in many cases, who you are voting for or against.

Second: Even if you had the time, it wouldnt be wise to listen to the entire 7.5 hours in a single block because there is too much varied information to sponge up. It is more efficient and more practical to listen or watch one hour or so a day.

I can summorize the hearing, but that is not going to help sportsmen get a feel for the pulse of these people and the system. Most of them they observe the system and the players vicariously through the newsletters and magazines they read. Investing the time and mental energy creates a growing pain, but without breaking that pain barrier growth will not occur and as a result of that the sport of hunting will continue its downward spiral.

We all heard the saying that some people make things happen, other people watch things happen, and additional other people say what happened? The people who have been running things (making things happen) and/or their replacements have not changed their mentality for generations. Unless one is totally satisfied with every existing, proposed, or pending law or policy it doesnt pay to sit back. If you do want change you must put in the same amount of effort as those running things, and that effort is enormous. And it starts with sacrificing time and paying attention.

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you get my point? You have picked this one issue to invest your 7-1/2 hours into, and it is a worthy effort. But the truth is that there are many more important issues that effect our lives and our surroundings. Things going on in Washington, Albany, and everywhere around the world. And each one of these items requires much more than even the 7-1/2 hours that you are suggesting here. Obviously, there is not enough time in a day to get that involved in any one of these issues. It's a losing proposition. I and others are overwhelmed in our efforts to keep up with it all. Certainly I don't have 7-1/2 hours to devote to each issue.

I am just trying to explain why I and maybe all the other members will not be spending the time to watch this all. It's a shame because I am sure this is a worthy issue, but things have grown way to complex in this world to be investing that kind of time in a practical or realistic sense. It really makes me wonder how anyone can consider themselves an informed citizen.

Sorry, I didn't want to hijack this thread, but I felt the need to explain why I, for one will not (can not) be participating in this topic even though I would like to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think you are high jacking, I appreciate your input, wish there was more. You bet I get your point. However, the 7.5 hours is not about a single issue, as a matter of fact whoever created the video did not title it correctly. I do feel however, if someone is going to engage the influential players or those with power, it is very instructive to watch the entire video to get a feel for the people behind the names.

I strongly disagree however, that the ban on bushmaster rifles or high cap. magazines is the biggest thing going on right now. I dont like the ban on principle, and dont get me wrong. I even know non gun owners who are shaken by the power of the federal and state goverment to take away their right to protect their families or just their property rights by propery seizure.

The biggest national issue right now, and one that is particularily deadly to NY is hydrofracking. Believe me a gas well 500 feet from your house is a lot more like dictatorship than it is given credit for by many who still dont get it. Case in point: watch the video: The DEC boss is grilled by lawmakers and harrassed by protesters. Yet 4 years ago it was the lawmakers who instead of banning HVH, they issued a 4 year morituriom - now that expired. The DEC's job at this point is mitigation measures through regulations, that is what they are doing, the time to speak out against it was 4 years ago, and I am sure they did caution against it. So they are doing there job, and may not even have any power to ban it or even speak out againt it at this point, yet the anti HVH orgs are screaming at them and going along with the crocadile tears from the same body who had the authority to ban it, but chose a moriturium, Go figure...

The biggest issue effecting the welfare of the sport of hunting isnt even the bushmaster ban. There is a plethora of things that need to change which impact the sport a lot more. The loyality to the NRA and other groups has created a solidarity which works, however, they perpetuate a very narrow, KISS, vicarious reality in which the priorities are out of order or miscategorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they are confused as to whether they are talking about the conservation fund or the Environmental protection fund.

I dont know what the scope of this hearing was supposed to be, but they made reference most often to the EPF, but the CF was specifically discussed as well. But I agree with you - a number of people testifying were all over the map and over the top and the entire hearing was convoluted. Much of the questions to the DEC and testimony was about fracking, which although very important, this topic frequently strayed from how it relates to budget many times during the hearing.

But heck, one of the latter testifiers, Dave VanLuven, from the Environmental Advocates of NY summed it up the best. He testified that 20 years ago he was one of the key players in crafting the EPF. He said the original intent of it was LAND AQUISITION. What he alluded to is true, if you listen to the 7.5 hour hearing, the EPF now funds a wide range of things including helping people in NYC with basement flooding problems...

What is ironic about what VanLuven said, is that the only thing definitive spoken at the hearing was that the controversial Finch Property aquisition will not be completed with or without EP Funds - go figure! By the way, my earlier comments that the finch property was paid for by the bottle bill is incorrect. The Nature Conservancy Purchased the property in trust for the state, however the state will not complete the transaction at least right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By mike rossi
      Details coming soon!
       
      As mourning doves expand northward Canadian Providences are instating hunting seasons. British Columbia has hunted doves for some time. Southern Ontario instated a season in 2014, and now Quebec. There is also a pending proposal in Manitoba and discussion elsewhere. 
    • By mike rossi
      Air Shotguns add a new dimension to dove hunting. Note the comment about the overhead utility lines, we are going to recommend the DEC prohibits dove hunting within gun range of lines to prevent damage to them. They are taking Eurasian collared doves, which are similar to our native mourning doves. They are spreading and it is not too uncommon to find this introduced dove across NY. The impacts of ECD are not known at this point.
       
      If you want to hunt doves in NY, sign our online petition at this link: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/petition.html 
       
      For info on Eurasian Collared Doves go to this link: http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/eurasian-collared-dove-hunting-ndash-endless-opportunity.html
       
       
       
    • By mike rossi
      Upcoming movie pushes back against the anti-bird dog movement, recommended by the AKC: 
       
      http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/new-movie.html
    • By mike rossi
      Dove Hunting, Spying on Trapper's Convention, NAVHDA Bird Dog Training, and more...
      This page takes a moment to load... it's worth the wait.
       
      http://nydovehunting.weebly.com/anti-hunting-activity-in-new-york.html
    • By mike rossi
      By now you might understand the utility of the information we are sending you and why we are sending it to you. If you are still cursing us out or scratching your head because you are not quite there yet, please stick around! 
       
      Below is a summary we compiled which reflects the central premises of anti-hunting activists both in general and specific to dove hunting. (In the future we will adapt this to pheasant stocking, Sunday hunting, and young forest management).
       
      Categories of arguments are grouped and typical premises of each category are listed.
       
      For your convenience the same information is attached to this email as a pdf file which can be downloaded and saved to your computer.
       
       
      Catalog of Arguments Frequently used by Anti-Hunting Organizations and Activists
       
      Hunter Attitude and Behavior Arguments
       
      1. Lack of interest in retrieving doves.
      2. Hunters do not retrieve or eat doves but rather use them for target practice. Comments made by hunters, outdoor writers, and hunting spokespersons which reflect that or can be construed as such, are frequently quoted by anti-hunters and the media. 
      3. Dove hunting practices are cruel/inhumane/unethical/immoral/unsporting
      4. How hunting causes suffering to doves, for example wounding and not retrieving.
       
      Social Imbalance Arguments
       
      1. Expanding hunting opportunity will contract opportunity for non-hunting activities.
      2. Participation in hunting is shrinking and there is more revenue generated and greater participation in other outdoor activities. Policy should favor the majority.
      3. Expanding hunting opportunity will make NY less desirable for non-hunting recreation which will result in lost revenue for the state and local economies.
      4. The vast majority of hunters are middle aged or older Caucasian males.
       
      Power and Control Arguments
       
      1. Decisions should be made by majority rule (voting).
      2. Hunting policy is decided under a rigged system tainted by favoritism, politics, special interests, money, and abuse of power.
      3. State wildlife agencies mismanage wildlife to accommodate hunters because hunting license revenue is their primary source of funds.
      4. A pro-hunting culture exists within the DEC.
      5. There is no anti-hunting representation on the Conservation Fund Advisory Board and the Fish and Wildlife Management Board. At least one representative of the Humane Society of the United States should be appointed to these boards to represent the interests of the broader public, not just hunters.
       
      Public Participation Arguments
       
      1. Anti-hunters claim they are disenfranchised from the decision making process, the extent to which they are involved, the nature of their involvement.
      2. Lack of transparency of the decision-making process exists.
      3. Public notice was inadequate and therefore stakeholder participation was compromised. 
       
      Arguments about the reliability of population estimates, monitoring, and information about mourning doves.
       
      1. Science is not recent enough
      2. Quality of science is inadequate or questionable
      3. Need NY specific data
      4. Imprecise population estimates
      5. There is speculation surrounding dove management.
      6. NEPA requires ESA, EIS before instating a dove hunting season and/or similar action should be taken prior to considering a dove season. 
       
      Wildlife management is a failure/debacle
       
      1. Management of doves and other wildlife is not working/failing/ineffective.
      2. Animal-related problems are the result of human arrogance, intervention, manipulation or management.
      3. Hunting causes imbalanced wildlife populations.
       
      Dove Hunting is not biologically justified
       
      1. Management need does not exist because doves are not overpopulated or a nuisance species, therefore hunting is not biologically justified.
       
      Dove hunting will not generate conservation revenue or general economic activity.
       
      1. Flawed economic report (flawed because of gross misinterpretation of data)
      2. Participation in dove hunting does not require much money so it should not be allowed
      3. Dove hunters do not buy electronic dog equipment so the economic impact of dove hunting is insignificant.
      4. Dove hunting will only redistribute the effort but not increase license sales.
      5. Dove hunting will have an impact on ticket sales for concerts and basketball games thereby hurting the economy.
       
      Lack of meat
       
      1. A dove is too small to provide “sustenance”.
       
      Palatability
       
      1. Dove meat has a bitter taste that requires heavy marinades
      2. Crow tastes like wild duck and doves
       
      Doves as Symbols
       
      1. Christian
      2. Hebrew
      3. Pagan
      4. Military
      5. Pacifist
      6. Artist Picasso's painting of the Peace Dove.
       
      Public Safety
       
      1. Dove hunting jeopardizes the safety of non-hunters recreating outdoors
       
      Maintain the Status Quo
       
      1. Doves have not been hunted in NY for many years and that protection should remain in place.
       
      Assigning Characteristics to Doves
       
      1. Peaceful, innocent, helpless, loving, devoted, cute, etc.
       
      Incidental Take of Protected Birds
       
      1. Concerns are often raised about hunter’s ability or commitment to identify doves in flight
      2. Persons self-identifying as “experienced” bird watchers, or indicate they study birds for a living (including several artists who characterize their livelihood as “study birds for a living”) indicate they personally have misidentified stationary doves with binoculars, and assert that an error is more likely when discerning birds in flight without binoculars.
       
      Miscellaneous
       
      1. “I am not an animal rights extremist” “I am just a concerned bird watcher”.
      2. ‘I am a hunter, but I oppose hunting doves”.
      3. Orphaned chicks
      4. Compare mourning doves with the passenger pigeon.
      5.  Pb ammunition
      6. Hunters will shoot at doves flying near or perched on utility lines and damage them.
      7.  Writer indicates experience owning a dove or other bird as a pet, saving young birds.
      8. Writer advocates teaching children and/or adults about coexisting with wildlife, animals were here first, compassion for doves, reverence for all life.
      9.  Eating meat is unhealthy or bad for the environment.
      10.  Amount of money spent by both sides or the government in fighting the matter.
      11. Because I feed doves in my backyard people should not hunt them.
      12. Hunters already have enough species to hunt.
      13. Doves are the Farmer’s Friend because they control nuisance plants by eating seeds.
      14. New York State Assembly Rule 3, Sec 1(f) requires the Fiscal Implications of Legislation must be determined.
      15. Anti-hunters will often quote or paraphrase statements made by well-known persons, some of which were published over 120 years ago. The content of such statements is varied:  opinion, outdated science, and often speculation that did not pan out over time.
       
      Characterization of Hunters
       
      1. Real men do not hunt
      2. Hunters are cowards
      3. Hunters are feeble-minded
      4. Hunters are inbred
      5. Hunters are overweight or “paunchy”.
      6. Hunters are backwards
      7. Hunters are hicks
      8. Hunters are Caucasian males
      9. Hunters are an aging and dying breed that is going extinct, in with the new and out with the old!
      10. Hunters are drunks
      11. Hunters are non-athletic or “NARPS” – non-athletic regular person
      12. Hunters can’t fist fight so they need guns
      13.  Multiple contexts of physical inadequacy, sexual inadequacy/etc.
      14. Hunters have the “little man syndrome”.
       
      Core arguments-FD.pdf
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...