Doves & swans moderators consider putting this in waterfowl

[mike rossi]

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.

[mike rossi]

Some other thoughts about this:

 

It is not uncommon at all for sportsman to belong to several rod and gun clubs. This allows one person to vote multiple times on one issue.

 

Rod & Gun Clubs do not perform education outreach. They simply conduct their vote on some monthly meeting on some Tuesday or Wednesday night.... A percentage of newcomers might not even explore the issue and just vote. Many don't ever consider exploring issues because of the accepted practice among hunters of sticking together. Novices or youth may look to club members for guidance and/or simply follow their lead like sheep.