Mike Rossi
Banned
A lot of info here, all of it is important....
Introduction
Anti-hunting organizations believe pheasant hunting is susceptible to their attacks, as they do with dove hunting. Anti-Hunting organizations claim that state wildlife agencies are conducting pheasant programs that are not ecologically or financially sound.
Pheasants are characterized by wildlife scientists as the following:
A Game Species
Non Native Species
Beneficial Species
Naturalized Species, same context as naturalized citizen.
Invasive biology is at the forefront these days, so the public has heard about it, but does not fully understand it, thus it is easy to conflate any non-native species with an invasive species. However, wildlife scientists have certain criteria which qualifies a species as an invasive species, merely being non-native does not constitute invasive.
Ironically, anti-hunters try to characterize the pheasant as an invasive species. This is an unusual stance for organizations representing the rights of animals, because very often invasive species are exterminated.
As a matter of fact, the same organizations that misrepresent the pheasant as an invasive species have a well-documented history of contesting the classification and/or management of other species deemed invasive by wildlife professionals in the private, public, and academic sectors.
READ MORE - Misrepresentation of the Facts
Two types of Pheasant Programs throughout the US
Wild Pheasant Conservation
* Increases Conservation Funding
* Generates general economic activity
* Paid for by hunters
* Undertaken on both private and public land
* Conserves and maintains ephemeral habitats
Increases biodiversity
Conserves Soil
Conserves, filters, and recharges water
Prevents erosion
Sequesters carbon, a greenhouse gas.
Abstains or greatly reduces the use of herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizer.
Reduces wind, snow drift, chemical drift, noise, heat, and cold around human habitation.
State Pheasant Stocking
* Increases Conservation Funding
* Generates general economic activity
* Paid for by hunters
* Undertaken on both private and public land
* Conserves and maintains ephemeral habitats
Increases biodiversity
Conserves Soil
Conserves, filters, and recharges water
Prevents erosion
Sequesters carbon, a greenhouse gas.
Abstains or greatly reduces the use of herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizer.
Reduces wind, snow drift, chemical drift, noise, heat, and cold around human habitation.
What Defines an Invasive Species
NY State’s definition by Law: Title 17, Section 9 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). The Council was created to coordinate among multiple State entities and partners in addressing the environmental and economic threats of invasive species. The legislation defines invasive species as "a species that is: (a) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration; and (b) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
The USFWS follows Executive Order 13112, which outlines the federal definition of an invasive species.
The USFWS also has an Injurious Species definition.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Q&A about Invasive Species:
Q: What are invasive species (also defines the terms “exotic” and “native”)?
A: To understand what an invasive species is, one must first understand the difference between an exotic species and a native species. An exotic species is any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that habitat. Other terms sometimes used for exotic species include “non-native.” “non-indigenous,” and “alien.” A native species is a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurs/occurred in that particular habitat. These definitions come from Executive Order 13112.
Q: Are all exotic (non-native) species considered invasive?
A: No, not all exotic species are invasive. In many cases, a species not native to an area is not adapted to it. If you introduced African elephants to Alaska - they would not survive. In other cases, however, a new species can do well in a new habitat, such as striped bass introduced to the Sacramento River in California. Only in a few cases do introduced species "go wild" and grow invasively, beyond acceptable levels. Current research seems to indicate that approximately 4-19% of the non-native species introduced into the U.S. might be invasive (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1993).
Q: Are all exotic species harmful?
A: No, not all exotic species are considered harmful. Non-native plants are fundamental to our lifestyle - most of our food crops, such as potatoes and wheat, are not native to the United States. Invasive species, however, are exotic organisms that have gone beyond being useful and have become harmful. A species is not usually recognized as invasive until it causes some sort of harm or cost to the ecology, economy, or to human health. Attempts to plant kudzu as a forage crop and an ornamental plant and attempts to develop a nutria population for fur harvest, for example, both backfired and have now become invasive species problems. There are some benefits to all species - but invasive species do more harm than good.
An invasive species is an exotic species whose introduction into an ecosystem in which the species is not native causes or is likely to cause environmental or economic harm or harm to human health. It is important to note that when we talk about a species being invasive, we are talking about ecosystem or environmental boundaries, not political ones. In addition to the many invasive species from outside the U.S., there are many species from within the U.S. that are invasive in other parts of the country because they are not native to the ecosystem in which they have become established.
Q: How can we know if an exotic species has the potential to be invasive?
A: Although there is not one specific trait or a specific set of traits common to all invasive species, there is a suite of traits that invasive species often have. Not all invasive species will have all of these traits, but most invasive species seem to have one or more of these traits.
The traits include (Williams and Meffe, 1998):
High rate of reproduction
Pioneer Species (able to colonize areas after they have been disturbed)
Short generation times
Long-lived
High dispersal rates
Single-parent reproduction
Vegetative or clonal reproduction
High genetic variability
Broad native range / Tolerant of wide range of conditions / Habitat generalist (can live in many different types of habitats)
Abundant in native range
Broad diet
Gregarious
Human commensal (lives in close association with humans)
Source:
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/nwrs.html
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html#q1
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html#q5
Anti-hunters work to alienate pheasant hunters from other hunters
Anti-hunters work to get other hunting factions to throw pheasant hunters under the bus. They claim that pheasant hunting is costly, unsporting, and unpopular. Those three adjectives resonate well with the value system of hunters and other hunters may simply see an opportunity to increase their own opportunity by limiting someone else’s.
Quotes From Anti-Hunting Organizations:
Patrick Kwan, New York state Director of the Humane Society of the United States, said the practice of releasing pen-reared pheasants into the wild for hunting each year is "an abhorrent ritual."
"It's despicable that even with New York state's budget crunch, the sport hunting lobby is still jockeying for tax dollars to restore one of the least deserving and most inhumane programs imaginable," Kwan said by e-mail. "With so many legitimate programs in New York state that are facing cuts, it's absolutely inexcusable for taxpayer money to be going towards what is essentially recreational killing and target practice using live animals."
It costs roughly $750,000 per year to run the game farm, according to the DEC.
In announcing his initial decision to close the game farm in mid-December, Paterson said the $12 billion state budget deficit required "focus(ing) our limited resources in this difficult crisis."
"The closure of the Reynolds Game Farm presents us with one such opportunity," he said.
Summary
There are operating costs involved in running game farms. On occasion, throughout the nation, state budgets have included proposals to terminate state game farms. Each time, Anti-Hunting Organizations have weighed in to support these budget cuts which would eliminate pheasant stocking.
However, attorneys for hunters have cited the laws governing the Pittman-Robertson Act and other state laws which deem closures of state game farms illegal. Link to Complaint
Additionally, it has been determined that the operating costs associated with game farms are less than revenue generated by them. That revenue includes both general economic activity and conservation funding. For example, the state of New Jersey’s entire gamebird stocking program (ring-necked pheasant and northern bobwhite) is 100% user-funded exclusively by pheasant and bobwhite hunters. Even license revenue from other hunters does not enter the program.
Economic Information on NY’s Pheasant Stocking
New York DEC's Small Game Hunter Survey indicates that about 23,000 hunters harvest over 50,000 pheasants statewide, while spending almost 106,000 days afield annually.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, small game hunters spent approximately $600 per person per year, contributing millions of dollars to the state economy.
DEC's Bureau of Wildlife owns and operates the Richard E. Reynolds Game Farm, the state's only pheasant production facility, located near Ithaca, New York. The game farm supports four full-time permanent staff and employs up to ten additional temporary staff during the peak of propagation activities (March-November).
Conclusion
When considering the rhetoric of individuals and organizations opposed to pheasant hunting, pheasant stocking and mourning dove hunting we urge policy decision makers to use due diligence in the handling these matters.
Introduction
Anti-hunting organizations believe pheasant hunting is susceptible to their attacks, as they do with dove hunting. Anti-Hunting organizations claim that state wildlife agencies are conducting pheasant programs that are not ecologically or financially sound.
Pheasants are characterized by wildlife scientists as the following:
A Game Species
Non Native Species
Beneficial Species
Naturalized Species, same context as naturalized citizen.
Invasive biology is at the forefront these days, so the public has heard about it, but does not fully understand it, thus it is easy to conflate any non-native species with an invasive species. However, wildlife scientists have certain criteria which qualifies a species as an invasive species, merely being non-native does not constitute invasive.
Ironically, anti-hunters try to characterize the pheasant as an invasive species. This is an unusual stance for organizations representing the rights of animals, because very often invasive species are exterminated.
As a matter of fact, the same organizations that misrepresent the pheasant as an invasive species have a well-documented history of contesting the classification and/or management of other species deemed invasive by wildlife professionals in the private, public, and academic sectors.
READ MORE - Misrepresentation of the Facts
Two types of Pheasant Programs throughout the US
Wild Pheasant Conservation
* Increases Conservation Funding
* Generates general economic activity
* Paid for by hunters
* Undertaken on both private and public land
* Conserves and maintains ephemeral habitats
Increases biodiversity
Conserves Soil
Conserves, filters, and recharges water
Prevents erosion
Sequesters carbon, a greenhouse gas.
Abstains or greatly reduces the use of herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizer.
Reduces wind, snow drift, chemical drift, noise, heat, and cold around human habitation.
State Pheasant Stocking
* Increases Conservation Funding
* Generates general economic activity
* Paid for by hunters
* Undertaken on both private and public land
* Conserves and maintains ephemeral habitats
Increases biodiversity
Conserves Soil
Conserves, filters, and recharges water
Prevents erosion
Sequesters carbon, a greenhouse gas.
Abstains or greatly reduces the use of herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilizer.
Reduces wind, snow drift, chemical drift, noise, heat, and cold around human habitation.
What Defines an Invasive Species
NY State’s definition by Law: Title 17, Section 9 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). The Council was created to coordinate among multiple State entities and partners in addressing the environmental and economic threats of invasive species. The legislation defines invasive species as "a species that is: (a) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration; and (b) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health."
The USFWS follows Executive Order 13112, which outlines the federal definition of an invasive species.
The USFWS also has an Injurious Species definition.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service Q&A about Invasive Species:
Q: What are invasive species (also defines the terms “exotic” and “native”)?
A: To understand what an invasive species is, one must first understand the difference between an exotic species and a native species. An exotic species is any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that habitat. Other terms sometimes used for exotic species include “non-native.” “non-indigenous,” and “alien.” A native species is a species that, other than as a result of an introduction, historically occurs/occurred in that particular habitat. These definitions come from Executive Order 13112.
Q: Are all exotic (non-native) species considered invasive?
A: No, not all exotic species are invasive. In many cases, a species not native to an area is not adapted to it. If you introduced African elephants to Alaska - they would not survive. In other cases, however, a new species can do well in a new habitat, such as striped bass introduced to the Sacramento River in California. Only in a few cases do introduced species "go wild" and grow invasively, beyond acceptable levels. Current research seems to indicate that approximately 4-19% of the non-native species introduced into the U.S. might be invasive (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1993).
Q: Are all exotic species harmful?
A: No, not all exotic species are considered harmful. Non-native plants are fundamental to our lifestyle - most of our food crops, such as potatoes and wheat, are not native to the United States. Invasive species, however, are exotic organisms that have gone beyond being useful and have become harmful. A species is not usually recognized as invasive until it causes some sort of harm or cost to the ecology, economy, or to human health. Attempts to plant kudzu as a forage crop and an ornamental plant and attempts to develop a nutria population for fur harvest, for example, both backfired and have now become invasive species problems. There are some benefits to all species - but invasive species do more harm than good.
An invasive species is an exotic species whose introduction into an ecosystem in which the species is not native causes or is likely to cause environmental or economic harm or harm to human health. It is important to note that when we talk about a species being invasive, we are talking about ecosystem or environmental boundaries, not political ones. In addition to the many invasive species from outside the U.S., there are many species from within the U.S. that are invasive in other parts of the country because they are not native to the ecosystem in which they have become established.
Q: How can we know if an exotic species has the potential to be invasive?
A: Although there is not one specific trait or a specific set of traits common to all invasive species, there is a suite of traits that invasive species often have. Not all invasive species will have all of these traits, but most invasive species seem to have one or more of these traits.
The traits include (Williams and Meffe, 1998):
High rate of reproduction
Pioneer Species (able to colonize areas after they have been disturbed)
Short generation times
Long-lived
High dispersal rates
Single-parent reproduction
Vegetative or clonal reproduction
High genetic variability
Broad native range / Tolerant of wide range of conditions / Habitat generalist (can live in many different types of habitats)
Abundant in native range
Broad diet
Gregarious
Human commensal (lives in close association with humans)
Source:
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/nwrs.html
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html#q1
http://www.fws.gov/invasives/faq.html#q5
Anti-hunters work to alienate pheasant hunters from other hunters
Anti-hunters work to get other hunting factions to throw pheasant hunters under the bus. They claim that pheasant hunting is costly, unsporting, and unpopular. Those three adjectives resonate well with the value system of hunters and other hunters may simply see an opportunity to increase their own opportunity by limiting someone else’s.
Quotes From Anti-Hunting Organizations:
Patrick Kwan, New York state Director of the Humane Society of the United States, said the practice of releasing pen-reared pheasants into the wild for hunting each year is "an abhorrent ritual."
"It's despicable that even with New York state's budget crunch, the sport hunting lobby is still jockeying for tax dollars to restore one of the least deserving and most inhumane programs imaginable," Kwan said by e-mail. "With so many legitimate programs in New York state that are facing cuts, it's absolutely inexcusable for taxpayer money to be going towards what is essentially recreational killing and target practice using live animals."
It costs roughly $750,000 per year to run the game farm, according to the DEC.
In announcing his initial decision to close the game farm in mid-December, Paterson said the $12 billion state budget deficit required "focus(ing) our limited resources in this difficult crisis."
"The closure of the Reynolds Game Farm presents us with one such opportunity," he said.
Summary
There are operating costs involved in running game farms. On occasion, throughout the nation, state budgets have included proposals to terminate state game farms. Each time, Anti-Hunting Organizations have weighed in to support these budget cuts which would eliminate pheasant stocking.
However, attorneys for hunters have cited the laws governing the Pittman-Robertson Act and other state laws which deem closures of state game farms illegal. Link to Complaint
Additionally, it has been determined that the operating costs associated with game farms are less than revenue generated by them. That revenue includes both general economic activity and conservation funding. For example, the state of New Jersey’s entire gamebird stocking program (ring-necked pheasant and northern bobwhite) is 100% user-funded exclusively by pheasant and bobwhite hunters. Even license revenue from other hunters does not enter the program.
Economic Information on NY’s Pheasant Stocking
New York DEC's Small Game Hunter Survey indicates that about 23,000 hunters harvest over 50,000 pheasants statewide, while spending almost 106,000 days afield annually.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, small game hunters spent approximately $600 per person per year, contributing millions of dollars to the state economy.
DEC's Bureau of Wildlife owns and operates the Richard E. Reynolds Game Farm, the state's only pheasant production facility, located near Ithaca, New York. The game farm supports four full-time permanent staff and employs up to ten additional temporary staff during the peak of propagation activities (March-November).
Conclusion
When considering the rhetoric of individuals and organizations opposed to pheasant hunting, pheasant stocking and mourning dove hunting we urge policy decision makers to use due diligence in the handling these matters.
. 
