Interesting thoughts on Maine hntg & fish'g laws proposal

[Curmudgeon]

First, please send me info about the hound injunction (lawsuit), I did not hear about that.

 

Second, opposition to the recent bear plan was nothing compared to the public outcry against the mute swan plan. Comments from antis was relatively light. The summary of public comments was online, it probably still is, although the DEC does not keep them up forever. 

 

Mike -

 

The bear suit was in 1990 - pre-internet. The only reference I can find on-line is here - http://nyhoundsmen.org/. The suit was brought by the SPCA.

 

It is understandable why the swan plan drew the response it did. Mute swans are some of the most visible, beautiful "wildlife" seen by urban people. It was never about science. It is not about hunting per se. It is about something beautiful that they love to watch. It is purely emotional. Kill all the feral pigs you want. They don't care. Bears? Bears are an abstraction to the swan lovers. Bears taken with snares and bait will draw the attention of the anti-hunters as it did in ME.

 

Edited April 22, 2015 by Curmudgeon

[mike rossi]

Mike -

 

The bear suit was in 1990 - pre-internet. The only reference I can find on-line is here - http://nyhoundsmen.org/. The suit was brought by the SPCA.

 

It is understandable why the swan plan drew the response it did. Mute swans are some of the most visible, beautiful "wildlife" seen by urban people. It was never about science. It is not about hunting per se. It is about something beautiful that they love to watch. It is purely emotional. Kill all the feral pigs you want. They don't care. Bears? Bears are an abstraction to the swan lovers. Bears taken with snares and bait will draw the attention of the anti-hunters as it did in ME.

 

Currently, as far as I know, there is a special permit you can get in NY to train bear dogs, but you are not allowed to kill them, it is a chase only season.

 

Within the past year, the DEC revised its black bear management plan. The plan had indicated that the DEC is considering allowing hounds, bait, and foot snares to harvest bears. The summary of public comments, if I remember correctly, had only around five statements given by antis.  The mute swan plan, opened for comment about a year prior, received well over 30,000 comments from antis.

 

The public comment response from antis on fairly recent proposals to expand seasons such as river otter trapping and bobcat trapping, also has been light by comparison to the mute swan plan. Currently, there is legislation to create a year-round coyote hunting season. The DEC is opposed to year-round coyote harvest, however if this passed the Legislature, and  forced the DEC to allow year-round coyote hunting,  I would not be surprised if the antis take it to the court room. 

 

Notice that there has been no attempt to contest the the mute swan plan in court. That is likely because they do not have a good cause of action. The attorneys for the antis will adjust the strategy on a state by state and species by species basis. There is no referendum vote in NY, and I am sure the mute swan case, unlike the case against hunting with bear hounds,  would be rejected by a court. So they knew the best weapon in NY was public outcry and the Legislature, so that is how they attacked.

 

Hiring PCI Consultants and running TV ads ("Dave the Dove"), as the HSUS did in Michigan,  or other campaigns to gain enough petitions to put the issue on the ballot, would not be effective in NY, because NY does not have referendums. The HSUS spent $2 million on TV ads in Michigan, in NY, unless their best strategy is the courtroom, they spend nothing, just go to the Legislature... I am not saying we would be better off with referendums, because we would not, we would be screwed. I am just showing how they operate differently in different states. 

[Doc]

 

I started to answer Doc about clarifying his context regarding "whose science"; but I decided not to go down this path again. If people want to bash science, then they need to pin down their premises to one context, not throw out wide generalizations comprised of several different meanings. 

To clarify the "whose science" comment, what I had in mind was the usual fact of competing scientific data, research and studies that always comes out of the woodwork everytime  a controversial issue of wildlife management arises. We have dueling studies and research that every side of an issue trots out to back up their position. So when we say that we want "all fish and wildlife management legislation to be determined only by scientific principles", my comment regards the fact that seldom is there only one version of scientific principles. And so it has to be determined just who is going to be the arbiter of what scientific principles hold the credibility.

[steve863]

I will answer my own question. I disagree with Steve's implication. Staff attorneys for the DEC incorporate fighting these legal maneuvers into their daily work, they are not working late and weekends and submitting over time pay nor are they outside attorneys billing the DEC. State Conservation Agencies are in court all the time, whether it is hunting issues or any of the myriad of environmental issues, lets be serious here...  Also, the HSUS probably has enough money to outspend the DEC Bureau of Wildlife, if they wanted to. Why don't they invest in banning squirrel hunting? 

 

The HSUS is a business, and to sustain their income, they need to sustain controversy. To sustain their lucrative business, they must kill hunting slowly. 

 

Never the less, in any organization or movement, there are individuals true to the cause. Those people want hunting ceased as soon as possible, but know it must be done incrementally. 

 

 

Sure, there are groups who want to ban ALL hunting, and some are trying to do it one piece at a time as you suggest.  But, why haven't these groups tried to put up referendums or whatever to stop deer hunting in general as of yet?  Why?  Because they damned well know that they wouldn't have a chance in the world to get it banned.  Like I said before NO way are states going to roll over and let a big revenue stream like they get thru deer hunting be taken away by some animal-rights fanatics.  Nope, not going to happen anytime soon.  I am not saying that attempts at banning other forms of hunting may not be successful, but deer hunting for a good many years at least is pretty safe in my opinion.  

 

You keep bringing up dove hunting and the mute swan issue as examples of what could happen, and I commend you for your efforts with these, but they honestly are NO comparison in the impact that an attempted ban on deer hunting would have. They are worlds apart.  Many states, even NY make efforts to recruit new hunters, most of these new hunters coming in as deer hunters, so why would all this effort be put into something that they might turn around and ban in the not too distant future?  Deer hunting is here to stay in my opinion.  If anythings will bring it down it will be that it might become a big money game, where only the rich will be able to afford private hunting land and everyone else will just give it up, but that will be our own self-destruction, and not thru the efforts of the animal-rights crowd.

[mike rossi]

Sure, there are groups who want to ban ALL hunting, and some are trying to do it one piece at a time as you suggest.  But, why haven't these groups tried to put up referendums or whatever to stop deer hunting in general as of yet?  Why?  Because they damned well know that they wouldn't have a chance in the world to get it banned.  Like I said before NO way are states going to roll over and let a big revenue stream like they get thru deer hunting be taken away by some animal-rights fanatics.  Nope, not going to happen anytime soon.  I am not saying that attempts at banning other forms of hunting may not be successful, but deer hunting for a good many years at least is pretty safe in my opinion.  

 

You keep bringing up dove hunting and the mute swan issue as examples of what could happen, and I commend you for your efforts with these, but they honestly are NO comparison in the impact that an attempted ban on deer hunting would have. They are worlds apart.  Many states, even NY make efforts to recruit new hunters, most of these new hunters coming in as deer hunters, so why would all this effort be put into something that they might turn around and ban in the not too distant future?  Deer hunting is here to stay in my opinion.  If anythings will bring it down it will be that it might become a big money game, where only the rich will be able to afford private hunting land and everyone else will just give it up, but that will be our own self-destruction, and not thru the efforts of the animal-rights crowd.

 

So, what you are saying is that you believe that deer hunting is safe because of the revenue it generates; other forms of hunting are vulnerable, therefore all new hunters should deer hunt, private land is needed to hunt deer, a demand will be created for private land, and those not being  able to afford to lease private land will quit hunting.

 

Too bad when they quit they cant just go hunt waterfowl, pheasant or doves..... 

[Curmudgeon]

To assume deer hunting is safe solely because it is a money maker is not wise. If it is safe, it has as much to do with the interests of agriculture, gardeners, and insurance companies.

[steve863]

So, what you are saying is that you believe that deer hunting is safe because of the revenue it generates; other forms of hunting are vulnerable, therefore all new hunters should deer hunt, private land is needed to hunt deer, a demand will be created for private land, and those not being  able to afford to lease private land will quit hunting.

 

Too bad when they quit they cant just go hunt waterfowl, pheasant or doves..... 

 

 

No, I am not saying that all new hunters should only deer hunt.  I am saying that most new hunters DO get into hunting because they want to hunt DEER first and foremost.  You can do the math yourself.  No way that waterfowl, pheasant or dove hunters add up to as many as deer hunters.

 

And YES, not having private land to hunt has a detrimental effect on a deer hunter.  I've seen plenty of people give up hunting because they couldn't find other private land to hunt.  Especially as they've aged and don't have the time to spend looking for new spots.  I don't see any of these people hunting waterfowl, pheasants or doves as a substitute either.

 

 

Edited April 23, 2015 by steve863

[steve863]

To assume deer hunting is safe solely because it is a money maker is not wise. If it is safe, it has as much to do with the interests of agriculture, gardeners, and insurance companies.

 

 

I agree with you that these other interests are very important if not as important as the revenue coming to the state from deer license sales.  This only adds to deer hunting being untouchable for a good long time.

[mike rossi]

No, I am not saying that all new hunters should only deer hunt.  I am saying that most new hunters DO get into hunting because they want to hunt DEER first and foremost.  You can do the math yourself.  No way that waterfowl, pheasant or dove hunters add up to as many as deer hunters.

 

And YES, not having private land to hunt has a detrimental effect on a deer hunter.  I've seen plenty of people give up hunting because they couldn't find other private land to hunt.  Especially as they've aged and don't have the time to spend looking for new spots.  I don't see any of these people hunting waterfowl, pheasants or doves as a substitute either.

 

Here are the latest numbers; 

11.6 million “big game hunters” after deer, elk, turkey, bear generate $16.9 billion.

4.5 million “small game hunters” after pheasant, grouse, quail generate $2.6 billion.

2.6 million “migratory bird hunters” after doves, ducks, geese generate $ 1.8 billion.

 

NJ and Vermont wildlife divisions because of the loss of participation in hunting can no longer be supported by hunting-related revenue and are running off of the general fund and tax payers who do not hunt are not happy about it. I would say that the $4.4 billion from upland and migratory bird hunting, or even just the $1.8 billion derived from migratory birds is not something wildlife agencies sneeze at....

[mike rossi]

 

NJ and Vermont wildlife divisions because of the loss of participation in hunting can no longer be supported by hunting-related revenue and are running off of the general fund and tax payers who do not hunt are not happy about it. I would say that the $4.4 billion from upland and migratory bird hunting, or even just the $1.8 billion derived from migratory birds is not something wildlife agencies sneeze at....

 

I have to correct that slightly....

 

1) I assume, but am not sure, that NJ's non-game programs also receive general fund appropriations paid for by taxpayers. 

 

2) In NJ, there still is ONE game program that is still 100% user paid - the state pheasant and northern bobwhite stocking program. And those who pay are the pheasant and bobwhite hunters - the program does NOT receive revenue from general license sales, deer permits, turkey permits, or bear permits. The program is paid for with a $40 stamp purchased by 12,000 hunters, and possibly with matching wildlife restoration grants.

[nyantler]

If I have to make a choice of who to give (even unbridled) decision making... it would be the game department before the government. Unfortunately, sometimes the only choice is the lesser of two evils.

[mike rossi]

If I have to make a choice of who to give (even unbridled) decision making... it would be the game department before the government. Unfortunately, sometimes the only choice is the lesser of two evils.

 

Everyone thinks the game department (DEC) makes the decisions. However, it does not really work that way. The DEC makes recommendations to the legislature. I would tend to disagree with what you are implying, I believe the wildlife agency is most adept to make the best decisions. Except, you need to remember, that the agency will listen to the public as does the legislature. It is somewhat built into the system that they do, but that is not all good or all bad. 

 

For example, I will use NJ as an example again. Their system is actually a little different, because they have a politically appointed panel of 13 hunters and farmers known as the wildlife and fish council,  who give the final approval on regulations, not the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife.... 

 

Actually, two commissioners of NJ Wildlife and Fish each banned the bear hunt. This is ironic and  interesting for a number of reasons. (Commissioners are also politically appointed by the Governor, at the time Jon Corzine and one other governor were anti bear hunting and championed non lethal control) 

 

First, it would be like the DEC banning a season in NY. (However, I am not positive, but I believe in NY the commissioner can close a season, just cannot open or reinstate one, if so, it would be legal for he/she to do so).  

 

Second, these two NJ  commissioners overstepped their authority... Most famous for agency heads overstepping has been in setting dove seasons, not in closing seasons. So common was this in the mid-western states, it was a goldmine for the Humane Society who rode series of victories for over 30 years and as a result everyone is confused about doves. For example, those lawsuits are raised as excuses to not pursue dove seasons - which is ridiculous, because these lawsuits were related to existing seasons that were improperly reinstated in a manner contrary to law.  I want to add, however, since this flurry of litigation,  only 9 states have not properly reinstated dove seasons. 

 

Third, and probably most ironic, it that to reinstate the bear season, NJ sportsmen filed a lawsuit against their state wildlife agency (the equivalent of the NY DEC). Hunters suing wildlife agencies is not unheard of, for example PA sportsmen unsuccessfully sued the PGC to establish Sunday Hunting just last year. 

 

The irony is that around the same time, organizations representing NJ hunters and the Division of Wildlife had reportedly  decided not to set a dove hunting season, supposedly to  avoid litigation by animal rights organizations. The cost of litigation was raised, however, as I have explained numerous times, that the legal expenses are compensatory to the state, not additive. The irony is in that both the state and the hunting organizations were willing to battle each other in court over bears, however. What makes this more egregious, is that the hunters and state reached a similar agreement in 2011 to close its hunting season for Northern bobwhite.(except hunting is still allowed on two WMAs that are stocked with 5,000 bobwhite and dog training on bobwhites is allowed on about 12 other wmas stocked with 800 bobwhite, the closure pertained to wild - hatched birds).  Part of the "deal" was that when the bobwhite season was closed, a dove hunting season would be opened, never happened , although he state did reclassify the mourning dove as a game bird prior to this. 

 

FYI: the NJ bear hunting season gets a disproportionate amount of press and attention for what it is worth.... The state allows bear hunting to lottery chosen permit holders for 6 days concurrent with its firearm buck only deer season. in about 1,000 square miles (not a big area) and the harvest averages around 300 bears. The last few years, the division cant give away its quota of bear permits due to lack of interest.... 

 

Also, FYI, the bear season was reinstated by Governor Chris Christie, who made reinstating the season one of his campaign promises before being elected. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by mike rossi