A Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks brochure about crane hunting has this statement:
As whooping crane numbers increase, we all must work harder to minimize the chance of accidental shootings. Those opposed to hunting, and sandhill crane hunting in particular, are watching for migratory bird hunters to make a mistake. Future accidental shootings may end sandhill crane hunting in Kansas or elsewhere where it is currently legal. There are two important things hunters can do to minimize the chance of accidentally shooting a whooping crane. 1) make sure to identify game species and all the nongame species that look similar to game species, and 2) only shoot when absolutely sure of the target. The latter may mean that you pass up some legal shots, but with a fine of up to $100,000 and prison time of up to 1 year for shooting a whooping crane, it's better to be safe than sorry. Will MN crane hunters be subject to (and aware of) a deterrent like this? Yes, there are examples of poor behavior by birders but also by hunters. On one trip to Salt Lake WMA (on MN/SD border for the non-MN readers), someone had shot 2 ketrels and stuffed the beaks into the edge of the sign about birding the lake so the carcasses dangled there as a not very subtle message to birders. BTW, Mark's reasoned response to all the unfounded anti-birder ranting is one of the reasons I am on a monthly giving plan to the MN Audubon chapter. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Liz Stanley Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:21 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove season in MN? Eric, And in numerous replies you've made on this topic, you have yet to explain why it wouldn't have been a better approach for the DNR to have an open period of public discussion on the matter. Instead you manufacture ulterior motives on the part of those who voice concern over the process, bring up straw man arguments, and use invalid analogies to argue points that nobody is even making. I hope that's not the way you plan to approach teaching your ecology course, unless you're intentionally trying illustrate the use of logical fallacies. Liz > Mark, > > Thanks for reminding me in your first paragraph as to why I send my meager > dollars to ABC and not Audubon. While there might be a moralistic or > spiritual basis for a group or individual's position on a resource > management issue, such sentiments cannot be the basis for management > decisions such as hunting seasons, restricted access, or collection of > wildlife resources. I don't care why you like to shoot ducks or walk down > a plover beach during nesting season, but simply put, there has to > be decision making based on numbers, data, sound science - in other words > some empirical justification. As I once told a birder at Mattamuskeet NWR > in NC who opposed shooting ducks unless they were going to be eaten, "The > state and feds don't care what you do with them once they're dead, eat > 'em, mount 'em or chuck 'em in the woods". > > Audubon has certainly taken positions that have placed greater emphasis on > sentimental values of a particular group over sound science. Hopefully > such decisions are in the minority at the present time, but they have > occurred in the past. One such example is the opposition to increased > timber harvest in central and southern Appalachian forests that would have > benefitted many early-successional bird species. It turned out that many > older, wealthy retired folks turned to Audubon as NIMBYs as they didn't > want their "view" sacrificed for habitat creation. > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > --- On Tue, 7/27/10, MARTELL, Mark <mmart...@audubon.org> wrote: > > > From: MARTELL, Mark <mmart...@audubon.org> > Subject: Re: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a > dove season in MN? > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 11:17 AM > > > First, there are many reasons people can have "legitimate" concerns over > an issue like crane hunting, biological/conservation, emotional, > religious, mystical, whatever. Birds and other natural resources are not > the exclusive province of one segment of society; birders, hunters > whomever and to limit the conversation to only biological concerns is not > valid. The DNR is supposed to be managing natural resources for everyone > in the state, not just a select few. > > This then is the basis for our reaction to the DNRs unilateral, closed, > and surprising decision. In Minnesota we expect natural resource decisions > to be made in an open, transparent, and honest fashion. Opposed or in > favor of Mourning Dove hunting?; the issue was publicly debated (for > years) and brought before the state legislature for a vote. Even if you > disagreed with the final outcome you had a forum to speak up. Want to know > how the LCCMR or Lessard-Sams monies are being spent?; all those meetings > are open to the public and the schedule is posted on state websites. Want > to speak up about the 16-19 walleye slot limit on Farm Lake? - there are 2 > public hearings this month to do so and information can be found on the > front page of the DNR website right now! > > The DNR should not be allowed to make a decision as important, > controversial, and radical as opening a new hunting season on a species > that has not been hunted in nearly 100 years without a full and thorough > dialogue with the people of Minnesota. > > Mark Martell > Director of Bird Conservation > Audubon Minnesota > 2357 Ventura Dr. Suite 106 > St. Paul, MN 55125 > 651-739-9332 > > http://mn.audubon.org/ > > > Audubon Minnesota is now on Facebook. Become a Fan! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:mou-...@lists.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Eric > Harrold > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:47 AM > To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU > Subject: [mou-net] So why did Audubon and birders vehemently oppose a dove > season in MN? > > Was there any more biological justification to this opposition than there > is to the recently enacted crane season? Of course not. Again, I don't > have a problem with opposition, in the event folks can substantiate > legitimate concerns. They're hunted throughout the Great Plains with the > exception of stopover habitat along the Platte river (state of NE > altogether I guess). It doesn't seem to have negatively impacted these > populations, so do MN's birds come from an altogether different population > - I don't think so. > > Onward, > > Eric Harrold > Urbana, IL > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > -- Liz Stanley Bloomington, MN l...@lizstanley.com Backyard weather and feedercam: http://www.overlookcircle.org/ Photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/gymell/liz_favorites Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/lizmstanley ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
