Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The attorney for the US Sportsmen’s Alliance spent considerable time on the phone with me answering some questions. The USSA has the best person there is in place as their attorney and I urge hunters to purchase individual memberships and urge their clubs to invest in a club membership.

I relayed the notion that state wildlife agencies, for example NJ Fish, game and wildlife and NY DEC; are too broke to fight anti-hunting lawsuits in court and that is a reason for NEW JERSEY’S hesitation to pursue a dove season while concurrently defending the black bear season.

Being well aware that going to court is deep inside the territory of any natural resource agency; I did not find this credible. Frustrated that what seemed like false rumors where permeating across state lines; I contacted the attorney for the USSA.

I was informed the following:

Most states can handle the majority of court cases internally, that is they have an attorney on staff within the agency, often within the wildlife department. Furthermore; since this is considered to be a lawsuit against a state, the Attorney General’s Office of the state is mandated to defend the department.

States occasionally hire outside law firms for complicated issues and/or when they are aware of a lawyer with experience in the exact issue. That probably is more likely with issues such as hydrofracking than the classification of Mourning Doves.

The bottom line is most wildlife departments have at least one attorney on staff, as a salaried state employee and is also represented by attorneys from its Attorney General’s Office.

On the federal level; the antis have, in some instances, recouped their own legal fees at the expense of tax payers in litigation against the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This is maneuvered in two ways:

  1. If the court finds that the USFWS did what pretty much amounts to breaking its own laws; for example making an exception to the Endangered Species Act of Congress; the antis are entitled to the government repaying their legal fees.
  2. The Equal Access to Justice Act, which was designed to remove barriers to allow veterans and poor persons from suing the federal government; has some way been allowed to apply to wealthy anti-hunting lobby organizations pursuing opinion-based agendas not protected by number 1 above. There is discussion about reforming this act to its original intent of helping veterans and indigents with legitimate actions against the federal government obtain justice. Sportsmen and all Americans should follow and support this reform.

The next logical question is: Why are the anti-hunting plaintiff’s that bring bogus law suits which are defeated not held responsible for paying back the defendant’s legal expenses? The answer is that the complaint has to be entirely meritless and that seldom occurs because the antis are not that stupid. I interjected that is why hunters should not contest anything we could live with that even resembles being legitimate, for example a lead shot ban.

We then discussed the tactics used by the antis. It was explained that during the legislative phase the antis will use a propaganda campaign to either persuade politicians or threaten to vote them out of office. The content of their letters can be as unsophisticated as mentioning the “dove of peace” and that hunters do not eat doves.

If sportsmen win this “public opinion battle”, the antis sometimes file a lawsuit. The antis basically use three legal approaches:

  1. If state law requires an environmental impact statement; the antis will sue if one was not done. Even if one was completed, the antis may try to invalidate it.
  2. There are very specific legal guidelines a state must follow when a law is created, changed, or repealed. The antis will make sure that the legal procedure was followed perfectly. Typically antis complain that there was not sufficient notice to public and/or the public comment period was faulty in some way or another.
  3. Dispute the biological data, sometimes bringing their own biologist as an expert witness.

We then discussed the failed dove bills of the 1980s. It is believed that the urban politicians feared retaliation from their constituents. I questioned the reality that hunters are the world’s biggest minority; if this was entirely a numbers game, we would have lost all a long time ago. It was pointed out that it is not the total population of voters against hunters; but rather the number of passionate supporters (hunters) vs. the number of passionate opponents (anti-hunters). I was advised that hunters do write a lot of letters and politicians, even urban ones, know that hunters are active voters.

The bottom line is, the attorney for the USSA is convinced that the letters to politicians from hunters, without a doubt influence the success or failure of legislation. His belief the reason the 1980 NY Dove Bills failed was because NY hunters “are not connected” to doves and did not write to members of the legislature.

Fast Forward to 2012: NY has a new “dove bill”. The bill is “gathering dust” in committee, and it is not on the agenda as far as the scheduled meetings are posted online. If the committee does not put s6968 on its agenda by November, the bill will be dropped, to the delight of the antis. The lawyer for the USSA told me that political pressure in the form of letters to the chairman and members of the senate environmental conservation committee is what is required to get it on the agenda. Otherwise the bill will expire (that’s what the antis want) and it will not move forward for the legislature to consider.

Politicians are in their comfort zone when the opposition floods them with letters and there is few letters of supports. All they have to do is do nothing, the bill expires and they didn’t have to do their job and make (another) divisive decision. So get those letters, e-mails, or faxes flowing. Be prepared to keep doing it if the committee moves this bill along; which means we need to then contact other members of the legislature, especially those in your own voting district.

I also ask everyone to thank the USSA and become an individual member of the USSA and ask their club to become an organization member.

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look what the Humane Society of the US is sending out today...

http://action.humane....0&dlv_id=42261

Here is our direct response to that; tell your elected officials the humane society doesnt know what they are talking about. Also, please follow us on facebook and others are encouraged to paste stuff off of it, use it, or post links - we set up facebook so hunters can go to it and they can post it out on these boards etc.. We just cant do everything and need your help.

The Humane Society says they are songbirds, but the US Fish and Wildlife Service says they are migratory gamebirds. Doves help farmers by allowing them to apply for conservation grants to reestablish bird-seed-bearing native plant communiti...es. The subsequent decrease in herbicide & pesticide use far outwieghs the impact of lead shot. This advocacy group will not contest a lead shot ban however. Species are not hunted only because they are overpopulated and what constitutes "a good reason to .... is an emotion-based opinion the humane society wants everyone to adopt. There will be some unrecovered birds, but they will be recycled as food for predators and scavengers. Since dogs are a great aid in recovering shot game; demand for retrievers such as labradors, goldens, and chesapeakes will help empty out the shelters, municipal dog pounds, and resque kennels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went dove hunting a few times in Alabama, and they arent kidding when they said they were difficult to hit. Though I dont think we have quite the population of birds the south has.

We been getting this question over & over. NY is in the East Management Unit for Doves. Here is the USFWS data for this unit during 2009 and 2010. The top dove populations within this unit by state are: SC, NC, Ill., Ind., Oh., Kentucky, MS., Al., Ga.. The second highest dove abundance tier is the states of: NY , Florida, Lousianna, Tenn, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, WI, MI, PA, NJ, Conn., RI, Mass., VT, NH, MA. The lowest population tier contains one state, West Virginia. You might also find it interesting that the NY DEC has been banding doves since 2009. Please visit our facebook page for more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from todays Buffalo News...........(am I the only one who saw it?)...............................

Mourning dove legislation might fly

Legislation relies on changing the DEC's classification of the bird

By Will Elliott

News Outdoors Reporter

Published:May 26, 2012, 9:56 PM

2 Comments

Font Size:

Updated: May 26, 2012, 9:56 PM

Advertisement

trans.gif?PRAd=1615801&PRCID=1615801&PRplcmt=1721115&PRPID=1721115

Fred Neff typifies hunting expert Bill Hollister's mandate for successful turkey hunts: "You must use patience and persistence."

That is what Neff has been doing for more than two decades with legislators and hunters statewide in an effort to classify the mourning dove as a hunting/game bird species in New York.

Neff has devoted countless hours pointing out fact-based reasons for listing doves as birds. Currently, the Department of Environmental Conservation classifies the mourning dove as a songbird. That status does not exist in 40 of the 48 contiguous states, where these birds are assigned a hunting season and bag limits of varying numbers.

Anti-hunting groups are a big factor in not only establishing a season, but also in retaining the right to hunt. Neff points out that Michigan, one of the eight states that disallows dove hunting, once established a season with a two-year sunset clause.

The anti-dove-hunt lobbyists organized opposition strong enough to have the hunting season discontinued, and that status remains today.

Ironically, Neff points out the legal, well-managed hunts in Michigan and all other states where hunts are open have shown no ill effects on bird populations. Weather, habitat change and predation factors have been the major causes of mourning dove dynamics -- not hunters' kills.

Neff has put together a PDF file on reclassifying mourning doves that includes support from federation groups statewide and even has a section in which the Audubon Society established a neutral position (not opposition) on dove hunting.

Much of the pro support is based on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification of the mourning dove as a migratory bird species. As with waterfowl, crows and some upland game birds, states have the option to open seasons and bag limits for these birds.

Statistically, dove numbers remain higher and more consistent than pheasant and ruffed grouse populations statewide. Neff stresses an open season would encourage more hunters afield, recruit young and disheartened older hunters and generate more income from state license sales and hunting-trip expenses.

Senator John DeFrancisco (R-C-I, Syracuse) has sponsored Senate bill S6968, which directs the DEC commissioner to include the mourning dove as a migratory game bird.

"The next tasks are to campaign for an Assembly companion bill to urge legislators and sportsmen (for) successful passage of the legislation," Neff writes. He urges interested hunters to appeal to local sportsmen's clubs, federations and their area Assembly representatives.

[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the NRA has your back too. They sent this email out.

New York: Mourning Dove Hunting Legislation Now Pending in Senate Committee

Pro-hunting legislation has been introduced in the New York Senate.

Senate Bill 6968, sponsored by state Senator John A. DeFrancisco (R-50), would classify mourning doves as “migratory game birds,” ultimately allowing for the creation of a dove hunting season.

Mourning doves are the most popular and abundant game bird hunted in America and there is no biological justification to deny New Yorkers the right to hunt them. Mourning doves are regulated as migratory game birds by the federal government, but they are not classified as such by the state of New York. Because mourning doves are not classified as a “migratory game bird” species, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is unable to establish a dove hunting season.

Currently, forty of the lower forty-eight states have mourning dove hunting seasons, and federal regulations allow states in the eastern U.S. to select seasons up to 70 days in length, between September 1 and January 15, with a daily bag limit of 15 doves. "There is no biological reason why doves could not be hunted in New York,” according to the DEC’s website. It is about time that sportsmen are provided the opportunity to hunt mourning doves in New York.

Senate Bill 6968 is currently pending in the state Senate Environmental Conservation Committee. Contact members of the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to support of S.6968!

leg-ribbon-contact_105x78.jpg Senate Environmental Conservation Committee ribbon-line_21x77.jpg

Senator Mark Grisanti (R-60), Chairman

518-455-3240

[email protected]

Senator Tony Avella (D-11)

518-455-2210

[email protected]

Senator Adriano Espaillat (D-31)

518-455-2041

[email protected]

Senator Owen H. Johnson (R-4)

518-455-3411

[email protected]

Senator Kenneth P. LaValle (R-1)

518-455-3121

[email protected]

Senator Betty Little (R-45)

518-455-2811

[email protected]

Senator Carl L Marcellino (R-5)

518-455-2390

[email protected]

Senator George D. Maziarz (R-62)

518-455-2024

[email protected]

Senator Thomas F. O'Mara (R-53)

518-455-2091

[email protected]

Senator Suzi Oppenheimer (D-37)

518-455-2031

[email protected]

Senator Bill Perkins (D-30)

518-455-2441

[email protected]

Senator José M. Serrano (D-28)

518-455-2795

[email protected]

Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-35)

518-455-2585

[email protected]

Senator Catharine Young (R-57)

518-455-3563

[email protected]

Edited by ELMER J. FUDD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Reply to Post # 61 by Elmer Fudd...

Thanks for this post. Its great that some of the larger pro-hunting lobbys are acknowledging NY's Dove Bill... But it is local sportsmen at the grassroots level that have the ability to make this happen... The key is that interested hunters educate themselves about this issue, stay updated, and write letters throughout the entire process.

We have create an online presence to interest, organize,educate, update, and mobilize sportsmen. I urge everyone who is interested in a dove season to read the info posted on this and other boards, and to follow our facebook page. Ask other interested hunters to do the same. We need to get those letters in to the senate en-con committee. We also need to write the assembly and get somebody to sponsor a companion bill in the assembly branch.

Its also not to early to let the DEC you are interested in a dove season. The DEC has been banding doves to help the USFWS manage them since 2009. DEC under went training for this and there are already DEC staff responsible for the dove project There are tenative plans for every state; including non-hunting states, to develop a permenant dove banding program. Information about this is on our facebook page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Seven Ways NY Dove Hunting Facebook helps hunters be Responsive

> Understand the issues, laws, policies, statistics, biology, and social science (human dimensions).

> Understand the modus operandi the anti-hunting lobby has used against dove hunting in several other states in the last ten years.

> Information and contact information at your finger-tips to use for letter writing, public comment, or at stakeholder’s hearings

> Keep updated as the situation evolves

> Contribute your own knowledge, opinions, and personal experience to assist

> Log in and reply to online news about dove hunting legislation much faster by using your FB account to log in then copy & paste off NY Dove Hunting.

> Organize and network with other hunters by recommending the page and posting links to the page on sportsmen’s forums

http://www.facebook.com/pages/NY-Dove-Hunting/365031743546569

Link to comment
Share on other sites

July 2012 Update on s-6968 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s6968-2011

The following was told to me on July 2, 2012 by a representative of John Di Francisco’s office. John Di Francisco is the sponsor of this bill.

The bill was requested by a sportsman named Fred Neff who lives in Baldwinsville.

The “regular” legislative session ended in June and “special sessions” ordered by the governor will continue. Obviously this bill is not on the agenda for any “special sessions.”

The bill will have to be reintroduced in January and it is not certain whether it will be. If it is, it would not have to be reintroduced again (assuming it does not pass) until January 2015.

I was clearly told that letters or e-mails in support will influence the decision to reintroduce this bill. So if you want to hunt doves in NY or support it, contact his office [email protected] and ask that s-6968 is reintroduced. Do not wait until the fall. Contact his office as soon as possible and then one or two more times before Thanksgiving.

The person I spoke to could not speculate as to why the bill did not move in the senate environmental conservation committee. I was informed that there are a variety of reasons and that the committee chairman (Grisanti) [email protected] decides on whether or when to process a bill. We also need to contact Grisanti and the other members of the en-con committee: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Ask Grisanti to move the bill and the other committee members to support it.

I was also told that the senate does not always pursue an assembly sponsor and I assume the vice-versa is also true. Therefore it is necessary that individual sportsman contact members of the assembly http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ and ask them to sponsor a companion bill to s-6968 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/s6968-2011. On July 2, 2012 I spoke to Assemblyman Magee’s office http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=111 and was told that “he is seriously considering introducing a companion bill in January”. It is wise to contact Magee, your assembly district rep, and the other assembly members.

For continued updates subscribe to our Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/NY-Dove-Hunting/365031743546569

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second Update July 4, 2012

I spoke to a legislative aid in Senator Grisanti’s office on July 3, 2012. Grisanti is the chairman of the SECC.

I was told that although the dove bill was not prioritized mainly because it lacked an assembly companion bill; that the response in support was not compelling because the most common argument used by hunters did not strike a chord with the senate. I was told that most supportive letters argued that 40 other states do allow dove hunting. According to the person I spoke with, the senate does not feel that is a strong justification.

The letters by opposers where the stock anti-dove hunting arguments which we posted on Facebook and on sportsmen’s online forums. The (3) most common where:

  1. Doves are not edible
  2. Doves are not overpopulated and not a nuisance species, so why hunt them?
  3. The concern over the use of lead shot

In the future keep this in mind when communicating with politicians about dove hunting. Our FB page addresses all of the above. We have also discouraged hunters from justifying any form of hunting with overpopulation and nuisance species arguments. We also discourage hunters from opposing restrictions on lead shotgun ammunition and stress that this is one compromise we can live with rather than forfeit a dove season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As explained on our F.B. page a nationwide dove management initiative implemented in 2008 has implemented a banding program in all states, including states that do not allow dove hunting.

Wildlife agencies have utilized volunteers for banding and other projects for many years. While sportsmen will stock trout and sometimes band waterfowl, the volunteers that assist in non-game projects are generally non-hunters, some of them anti-hunters. To compound the matter more; colleges and universities have identified a trend such that very few wildlife students have ever hunted. The problem is so profound that the University of Davis California includes a waterfowl hunting trip in its curriculum.

The state of New Jersey is basing its dove banding operation out of The Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. A logical location were federal wildlife workers are based. This NWR however is notorious for the decades old annual deer hunt protest. Dove hunting is one of the most vehemently opposed forms of hunting and Jersey does not allow dove hunting. Jersey is the most urbanized state and has a strong anti-hunting lobby.

Federal and state wildlife agencies are also about getting the public close to nature, so to speak. In conjunction with banding, the refuge in Jersey invited the public to “release a dove”. We are not opposed to this ideologically; however the reality of the matter is that it will exacerbate anti -hunting sentiments and will overshadow and eventually undermine the longstanding efforts by sportsmen to assist wildlife agencies with both research and funding. As hunter’s numbers continue to decrease, (which they will in spite of stepped up recruitment efforts) wildlife agencies WILL seek stakeholders other than hunters to finance conservation – white-washing the number one defense of hunting and reducing the voice and influence of hunters.

It is important that sportsmen and in particular organizations, especially those with much influence, keep track of both the volunteer opportunities and the interpretive learning programs regarding non-game species and be sure some of us are active in every project or interpretive venue.

Article: http://www.fws.gov/f...&callingValue=5

Please Electronically Distribute and Cross Post this information.

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

September 1 marks the single busiest day of the year for the nation’s wingshooters. More Americans swing a gun on that day—the dove season opener—than any other, including 250,000 in Texas alone. Now even more of us can take to the field, thanks to new dove seasons in states like Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio.

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 BuckSteady
      New hunter to NY here. Found some public land to hunt, it’s a WMA. I wish I read the regs more thoroughly because I threw up a ladder stand yesterday and today when I was re-reading them, I saw you can’t put temporary stands on WMAs, only on state forests and other such state land. I honestly didn’t know I wasn’t allowed to, I even put my name and license # on the stand. I was going to go take it down tomorrow but it’s an hour drive so I wanted to ask, what do DEC officers do if they find a ladderstand like mine on a WMA? Is this an automatic fine or whatever? Will they just call me and tell me to come get it? Confiscate? How often do officers go through areas like WMAs and check for stands? Any info would be helpful. I’ll still probably go take it down tomorrow, although I have seen other stands up on the WMA, I just prefer to stay on the right side of the law myself. Thanks!
    • By CapDistPatriot
      Southern Zone only. I don't understand why they don't include rifle, only Bow & Muzzy...
       
      https://www.dec.ny.gov/press/121333.html
    • By Rebel Darling
      Here is DEC's harvest forecast for whitetail during the 2016 hunting season:
      http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/deerforecastr4.pdf
      Interesting info...  I doubt my WMU, 4L will ever have doe tags, and it's interesting to read that DEC is concerned by possible "misuse" of the 4J doe tags. 
    • 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
    • By Rebel Darling
      In case anyone is interested, the NYS Senate is considering the nomination of Basil Seggos as Commissioner, DEC:
       
      7:40 p.m.
       
      http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nysenate
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...