Knimrod
05-14-2006, 02:26 PM
Reinstating state's experimental dove season is a sensible move
May 12, 2006
BY MICHAEL V. BODARY
The Ann Arbor News
The question soon to be facing voters is whether to allow the state to reset an experimental dove season or not. Specifically, this may mean whether the birds will be reclassified as a game species from their songbird status. Emotions run high between the two sides while a large group in the middle still seems unsure of which way to lean. Current polls by Lansing based-EPIC/MRA show a close race but still show 18 percent undecided.
The state government and Department of Natural Resources favor the addition of the mourning dove as a game species on a very limited basis to watch the impact of this trial. Proponents point out that 40 states currently have the dove as a game bird - all the states that border us - and see the same populations in the group that migrates through. The dove is our most populous bird, with a continentwide population of over 400 million. Nationally, 22.7 million are harvested annually. The Michigan population is very healthy below a line between Ludington and Saginaw with more than 4 million birds. The state also has revenues in mind while currently faced with a decline in license fees over the past few years.
Opponents seem to appeal to emotional issues of the hunting. They point out the visual and backyard appeal of the birds and their songs. They also point out that the size of the bird is not large and would take many birds to make a meal. Most of the workers that circulated petitions were employed by the Humane Society of the U.S. (not an affiliation of our local animal shelters), whose often stated goal is the elimination of all hunting and eventually fishing.
To begin with, the experimental season was limited to a few very rural counties on the southern border that have large flyways of dove populations and an abundance of farms and natural feed. Opponents feel that this is a "foot in the door'' towards a statewide hunt. The DNR assures that the upper part of the state would not support a hunt. Proponents look at this as another move by anti-hunters to move towards restricting and eventually eliminating their sporting rights.
The two sides are not terribly distinguished from the two sides of the greater hunting question. Those who hunt and those who oppose most or all hunting seem to be lined up again. How can those of the undecided group make a decision?
The comparison of dove populations between states that allow hunting should be made with those that do not. In a year, six out of 10 doves will not survive. Their high mortality is due to natural predation by wild and domestic animals, linked with accidents and illnesses. The surprising thing is that the number remains the same with or without hunting being a factor. Michigan's rate of survival (without hunting) is the same as Indiana's rate (with hunting). In other words, hunting has no bearing on dove population in the long run. The birds killed by hunting are mostly taken from the 60 percent that are going to suffer mortality anyway from another source.
The small size of the game is at least comparable to the woodcock and a little smaller than a grouse, which are both game-listed animals. One dove yields about a quarter pound of meat and three would make a meal. It also takes some skill to shoot them, as they are very fast in flight in the wild and a hunter will spend a lot of ammunition getting a few birds. Certainly there will be no wholesale slaughter of the population.
Hunting supports a wide variety of game and non-game conservation every year. The benefit of license fees and taxes from sporting equipment is not just realized by hunters and other sportspersons but by the continued improvement of the habitat and environment of the whole state. Without it there will be much less spent on the projects that benefit hunting as well as environmental cleanup and greening of the landscape.
Sometimes people are surprised that responsible hunters are also steadfast in their desire to protect the environment, green spaces and rural area protection, including protection and enforcement of laws to protect songbirds. The difference is that hunters pay the money while opponents offer no compensation for the lost revenue. Are anti-hunters willing to offer $20 to $50 per year to the state for no one being allowed to hunt? I have doubts that they would welcome a tax increase that would replace the missed revenues from the loss of voluntary license fees.
Please leave the matter of whether or not there should be a limited hunting season for doves with the people best suited to initiate it and measure the results, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I urge your votes to reinstate the experimental dove season here.
Link to article (http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1147444908174940.xml?aanews?NEO&coll=2)
May 12, 2006
BY MICHAEL V. BODARY
The Ann Arbor News
The question soon to be facing voters is whether to allow the state to reset an experimental dove season or not. Specifically, this may mean whether the birds will be reclassified as a game species from their songbird status. Emotions run high between the two sides while a large group in the middle still seems unsure of which way to lean. Current polls by Lansing based-EPIC/MRA show a close race but still show 18 percent undecided.
The state government and Department of Natural Resources favor the addition of the mourning dove as a game species on a very limited basis to watch the impact of this trial. Proponents point out that 40 states currently have the dove as a game bird - all the states that border us - and see the same populations in the group that migrates through. The dove is our most populous bird, with a continentwide population of over 400 million. Nationally, 22.7 million are harvested annually. The Michigan population is very healthy below a line between Ludington and Saginaw with more than 4 million birds. The state also has revenues in mind while currently faced with a decline in license fees over the past few years.
Opponents seem to appeal to emotional issues of the hunting. They point out the visual and backyard appeal of the birds and their songs. They also point out that the size of the bird is not large and would take many birds to make a meal. Most of the workers that circulated petitions were employed by the Humane Society of the U.S. (not an affiliation of our local animal shelters), whose often stated goal is the elimination of all hunting and eventually fishing.
To begin with, the experimental season was limited to a few very rural counties on the southern border that have large flyways of dove populations and an abundance of farms and natural feed. Opponents feel that this is a "foot in the door'' towards a statewide hunt. The DNR assures that the upper part of the state would not support a hunt. Proponents look at this as another move by anti-hunters to move towards restricting and eventually eliminating their sporting rights.
The two sides are not terribly distinguished from the two sides of the greater hunting question. Those who hunt and those who oppose most or all hunting seem to be lined up again. How can those of the undecided group make a decision?
The comparison of dove populations between states that allow hunting should be made with those that do not. In a year, six out of 10 doves will not survive. Their high mortality is due to natural predation by wild and domestic animals, linked with accidents and illnesses. The surprising thing is that the number remains the same with or without hunting being a factor. Michigan's rate of survival (without hunting) is the same as Indiana's rate (with hunting). In other words, hunting has no bearing on dove population in the long run. The birds killed by hunting are mostly taken from the 60 percent that are going to suffer mortality anyway from another source.
The small size of the game is at least comparable to the woodcock and a little smaller than a grouse, which are both game-listed animals. One dove yields about a quarter pound of meat and three would make a meal. It also takes some skill to shoot them, as they are very fast in flight in the wild and a hunter will spend a lot of ammunition getting a few birds. Certainly there will be no wholesale slaughter of the population.
Hunting supports a wide variety of game and non-game conservation every year. The benefit of license fees and taxes from sporting equipment is not just realized by hunters and other sportspersons but by the continued improvement of the habitat and environment of the whole state. Without it there will be much less spent on the projects that benefit hunting as well as environmental cleanup and greening of the landscape.
Sometimes people are surprised that responsible hunters are also steadfast in their desire to protect the environment, green spaces and rural area protection, including protection and enforcement of laws to protect songbirds. The difference is that hunters pay the money while opponents offer no compensation for the lost revenue. Are anti-hunters willing to offer $20 to $50 per year to the state for no one being allowed to hunt? I have doubts that they would welcome a tax increase that would replace the missed revenues from the loss of voluntary license fees.
Please leave the matter of whether or not there should be a limited hunting season for doves with the people best suited to initiate it and measure the results, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. I urge your votes to reinstate the experimental dove season here.
Link to article (http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1147444908174940.xml?aanews?NEO&coll=2)