The Take Home Message
Introduction: Anti-hunters are both numerous and well–organized in NY. Contrary to widespread belief, pro-hunting legislation and DEC actions do not escape the radar of NY anti-hunters. Nor is it true that dove hunting united anti -hunters in Michigan and will produce that affect in NY. Wolf hunting and trapping is far more controversial and it is the issue that united anti-hunters in Michigan; not dove hunting. Pending legislation in NY to legalize year-round coyote hunting and proposals to control cormorants to enhance sport fisheries are also far more controversial than dove hunting. In 2014, anti-hunters weighed in heavily on the DEC’s Mute Swan Management Plan, sending 8,000 letters to the DEC in 45 days and lobbying the Legislature which resulted in both the DEC and the Legislature accommodating them.
Over the course of interfacing with our supporters; we sense that they now feel invested in the initiative, and any action taken by anti-hunters will energize them, pull them together and increase their engagement. That has not always been the case, nor have dove hunting advocates been organized as we have done in NY.
Recently, anti-hunters in NY have focused their efforts on banning hunting contests for species such as crows, squirrels, and coyotes.
In the past, anti-hunters in NY have had other agendas. In 2008 anti-hunters, using faulty economic arguments,and through characterizing pheasant hunters as a small and aging population with an “expiration date”; convinced Governor Patterson to close the State Pheasant Farm and thereby practically eliminate the tradition of pheasant hunting, which has been practiced in NY since 1908. The State Pheasant farm was set to close until the threat of a lawsuit hit Patterson’s desk which caused him to rescind the closure.
In 2010 and 2011, during the annual Humane Lobby Day held each year in Albany, the anti-hunters lobbied each of the 212 Legislators to stop senate bill 6968, a bill which would have set the stage to reinstate mourning dove hunting in NY.
Over the course of interfacing with our supporters; we sense that they now feel invested in the initiative, and any action taken by anti-hunters will energize them, pull them together and increase their engagement. That has not always been the case, nor have dove hunting advocates been organized as we have done in NY.
Recently, anti-hunters in NY have focused their efforts on banning hunting contests for species such as crows, squirrels, and coyotes.
In the past, anti-hunters in NY have had other agendas. In 2008 anti-hunters, using faulty economic arguments,and through characterizing pheasant hunters as a small and aging population with an “expiration date”; convinced Governor Patterson to close the State Pheasant Farm and thereby practically eliminate the tradition of pheasant hunting, which has been practiced in NY since 1908. The State Pheasant farm was set to close until the threat of a lawsuit hit Patterson’s desk which caused him to rescind the closure.
In 2010 and 2011, during the annual Humane Lobby Day held each year in Albany, the anti-hunters lobbied each of the 212 Legislators to stop senate bill 6968, a bill which would have set the stage to reinstate mourning dove hunting in NY.
According to the Humane Society, pheasant hunters are a small and aging population and therefore the state pheasant stocking program should be eliminated.
The Humane Society’s Dove and Pheasant Narratives:
We have already outlined the Humane Society’s dove and pheasant narratives, including giving our response to each of their assertions. We defer further discussion about the subject to the respective reports published on our website.
However, we do want to stress certain aspects of those narratives herein.
The Imbalance Argument:
We have observed that the Humane Society and other NY based anti-hunting organizations are creating a foundation of arguments which claim dove and/or pheasant hunting compromises bird watching and the DEC is favoring hunters instead of balancing the interests of bird watchers and bird hunters.
Our response is that the interests of both groups are balanced in NY, and expanding bird hunting opportunities will not create an imbalance. To the contrary, bird hunting actually enhances bird watching opportunities by generating conservation revenue for the DEC. Such revenue is used for research, habitat enhancement, and acquiring land which is open to bird watching. Research and habitat enhancement for game birds such as mourning doves, pheasant and woodcock has broader benefits for many non-game birds, two examples are the golden winged warbler and the short-eared owl. Furthermore, the assertion is speculative and subjective, and the Humane Society has not provided any measurable proof that dove hunting opportunity will compromise bird watching opportunity.
The Economic Argument:
Economic arguments against dove hunting and pheasant stocking are varied. Various groups claim State Pheasant Farms are funded by taxpayers; are exceedingly costly to operate, citing total annual budgets and comparing the number of pheasant hunters to the states total population or deer hunting population. However, closer analysis reveals the following:
In NY, tax revenue is not appropriated for the State Pheasant Farm. Rather the pheasant program costs each NY hunter, $1.30 a year. Since the DEC has invested millions of dollars in the short term investment pool, the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources is permanently funded, and pheasant hunters who have purchased a lifetime hunting license have therefore prepaid for the State Pheasant Farm.
In Pennsylvania, tax revenue is not appropriated for their State Pheasant Program, and the cost per hunter is about $6.67 per hunter, per year. This is greater than NY’s $1.30 per hunter, per year; however NY raises 25,000 pheasant compared to the 200,000 that Pennsylvania raises.
In New Jersey, the state pheasant and bobwhite stocking program is 100% funded by pheasant and bobwhite quail hunters through a stamp which is required to hunt these birds in addition to a hunting license.
The reality of how state pheasant programs are funded in NY, PA, and NJ is much different than how anti-hunters and other entities have asserted over and over. We conducted four surveys which included questions which evaluated the ability of hunters to discern statements made by policy makers from statements made by anti-hunters and outdoor writers. When asked to select the person who made a statement about the topic of economics related to pheasant stocking, the hunters who were surveyed consistently selected policy makers such as Legislators and DEC staff. However, all of the correct answers were representatives of anti-hunting organizations and outdoor writers. We concluded from those results, the obvious, that hunters themselves are highly influenced by incorrect information circulated by anti-hunters and outdoor writers.
The economic arguments made against reinstating mourning dove hunting are equally interesting. A report published in 2006 on the subject was commissioned by the Humane Society of the US, for their effort to repeal the freshly reinstated dove season in Michigan.
Data in the report derived from Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan – the latest states to reinstate dove hunting clearly shows that during the year dove hunting was reinstated, that both resident and non-resident small game license sales increased. In addition, Michigan sold almost 5,000 dove hunting stamps the first year the season was reinstated.
Yet the authors of the report asserted there was no gain attributable to the new season, because the long term trend in hunting license sales was not reversed, which is absurd.
The authors then referenced data from the Annual Survey of Wildlife Dependent Recreation which shows that bird watchers are more numerous than hunters, and spend much more money. The authors claim, that because bird watchers are more numerous and generate more revenue than hunters, that dove hunting should not be allowed.
Take Home Message to Our Supporters:
NY Dove Hunting urges our advocates to be prepared to properly address these assertions as well as other aspects of the Humane Society’s Dove and Pheasant Narratives. Be particularly aware that it is the Humane Society who is claiming dove and pheasant hunting interfere with bird watching, not the bird watching community. Hold the Humane Society accountable for that. Convincing the bird watching community hunting interferes and compromises their activity, when in fact it enhances it, is exactly what the Humane Society wants to do. This is between the hunters and the Humane Groups, it is not between the hunters and the Humane Groups plus the bird watchers. Do not help the Humane Society encourage it to become such.
We have already outlined the Humane Society’s dove and pheasant narratives, including giving our response to each of their assertions. We defer further discussion about the subject to the respective reports published on our website.
However, we do want to stress certain aspects of those narratives herein.
The Imbalance Argument:
We have observed that the Humane Society and other NY based anti-hunting organizations are creating a foundation of arguments which claim dove and/or pheasant hunting compromises bird watching and the DEC is favoring hunters instead of balancing the interests of bird watchers and bird hunters.
Our response is that the interests of both groups are balanced in NY, and expanding bird hunting opportunities will not create an imbalance. To the contrary, bird hunting actually enhances bird watching opportunities by generating conservation revenue for the DEC. Such revenue is used for research, habitat enhancement, and acquiring land which is open to bird watching. Research and habitat enhancement for game birds such as mourning doves, pheasant and woodcock has broader benefits for many non-game birds, two examples are the golden winged warbler and the short-eared owl. Furthermore, the assertion is speculative and subjective, and the Humane Society has not provided any measurable proof that dove hunting opportunity will compromise bird watching opportunity.
The Economic Argument:
Economic arguments against dove hunting and pheasant stocking are varied. Various groups claim State Pheasant Farms are funded by taxpayers; are exceedingly costly to operate, citing total annual budgets and comparing the number of pheasant hunters to the states total population or deer hunting population. However, closer analysis reveals the following:
In NY, tax revenue is not appropriated for the State Pheasant Farm. Rather the pheasant program costs each NY hunter, $1.30 a year. Since the DEC has invested millions of dollars in the short term investment pool, the Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources is permanently funded, and pheasant hunters who have purchased a lifetime hunting license have therefore prepaid for the State Pheasant Farm.
In Pennsylvania, tax revenue is not appropriated for their State Pheasant Program, and the cost per hunter is about $6.67 per hunter, per year. This is greater than NY’s $1.30 per hunter, per year; however NY raises 25,000 pheasant compared to the 200,000 that Pennsylvania raises.
In New Jersey, the state pheasant and bobwhite stocking program is 100% funded by pheasant and bobwhite quail hunters through a stamp which is required to hunt these birds in addition to a hunting license.
The reality of how state pheasant programs are funded in NY, PA, and NJ is much different than how anti-hunters and other entities have asserted over and over. We conducted four surveys which included questions which evaluated the ability of hunters to discern statements made by policy makers from statements made by anti-hunters and outdoor writers. When asked to select the person who made a statement about the topic of economics related to pheasant stocking, the hunters who were surveyed consistently selected policy makers such as Legislators and DEC staff. However, all of the correct answers were representatives of anti-hunting organizations and outdoor writers. We concluded from those results, the obvious, that hunters themselves are highly influenced by incorrect information circulated by anti-hunters and outdoor writers.
The economic arguments made against reinstating mourning dove hunting are equally interesting. A report published in 2006 on the subject was commissioned by the Humane Society of the US, for their effort to repeal the freshly reinstated dove season in Michigan.
Data in the report derived from Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan – the latest states to reinstate dove hunting clearly shows that during the year dove hunting was reinstated, that both resident and non-resident small game license sales increased. In addition, Michigan sold almost 5,000 dove hunting stamps the first year the season was reinstated.
Yet the authors of the report asserted there was no gain attributable to the new season, because the long term trend in hunting license sales was not reversed, which is absurd.
The authors then referenced data from the Annual Survey of Wildlife Dependent Recreation which shows that bird watchers are more numerous than hunters, and spend much more money. The authors claim, that because bird watchers are more numerous and generate more revenue than hunters, that dove hunting should not be allowed.
Take Home Message to Our Supporters:
NY Dove Hunting urges our advocates to be prepared to properly address these assertions as well as other aspects of the Humane Society’s Dove and Pheasant Narratives. Be particularly aware that it is the Humane Society who is claiming dove and pheasant hunting interfere with bird watching, not the bird watching community. Hold the Humane Society accountable for that. Convincing the bird watching community hunting interferes and compromises their activity, when in fact it enhances it, is exactly what the Humane Society wants to do. This is between the hunters and the Humane Groups, it is not between the hunters and the Humane Groups plus the bird watchers. Do not help the Humane Society encourage it to become such.
According to Brian Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States, in New York, there is an imbalance between the interest of bird watchers and bird hunters because the DEC favors the hunters.
Right to left; Bruce Friedrich (PETA), Casey Pheiffer, Michael Markarian, Patrick Kwan, and Jennifer Fearing (Humane Society)