Sunday Hunting Talking Points NJ
Introduction:
Most government organizations, particularly wildlife agencies; have decided that all identical letters (sometimes thousands); will count as one public comment and not more, thus invalidating the individual signatures. A petition may be considered an “identical letter”. To overcome this, we construct our form, coalition, and petition letters with numerous “talking points”; while purposely omitting numerous other talking points. This serves in a way to allow sportsmen and conservationists to not only raise these additional talking points in their own words; but also to increase the collective weight of the petition.
The Problem:
Prelude to The Problem: The more controversial the issue, the more important is absolute strict adherence to these concepts. Anything related to hunting is controversial; however some issues are exceedingly controversial such as Sunday hunting and Mourning Dove Hunting.
Sportsmen tend to make predictable mistakes, as they have been repeating the same errors for decades.
It is very important to do thorough fact checking. That mandates getting your information from reliable sources such as government wildlife agencies, universities, and peer-reviewed research journals. Only organizations such as The Wildlife Society, Ducks Unlimited (the mother organization, not local chapters), and the Wildlife Management Institute should be trusted.
While it is good to put your comments in your own words, your context must be PERFECT. Sometimes changing one word will alter the entire meaning of your message.
Do not purposely change context to embellish information to make it consistent with your personal agenda or opinion. Doing so is creating propaganda. If you wish to express a personal opinion or the opinion of your organization, back it up with facts that support it, do not embellish the facts. Doing so will not survive scrutiny and will diminish your credibility and will undermine the credibility of the hunting community and wildlife agencies. It will also add to confusion and waste everyone’s time, including employees of wildlife agencies.
If everyone sticks to the facts, it is not necessary to worry about everyone sticking together. Although true, whether in South Dakota or New Jersey; that in order to pass controversial legislation the hunting community must show enough unified strength; the concept of sticking together has been misaligned by certain national organizations representing hunters into a practice which is slowly eroding the credibility of hunters with the general public.
Be relevant, and do not use well known “logic flawed” arguments such as red herring, ad hominin, straw man, and all the others.
Do not attack, criticize, or stereotype any person or group. Remember, hunters are a minority group with very few friends outside of their own community. Broad-based public support is not an option, it is mandatory if hunting is not to be severely restricted or even outright banned. To achieve this essential broad support it is essential that every pro-hunting initiative or premise demonstrates benefit to both non-hunters AND non-game species.
Do not make hunting a Partisan issue – do not reference anything about Democrats or Republicans. Do not make hunting a Political Ideology – do not reference anything about “Liberals” or “Conservatives”, nor “left wing” or “right wing”.
Science-Based Decisions do NOT always favor hunting or hunters. Do not be hypocritical in this regard.
_________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points/Sunday Hunting/NJ:
Bow Hunting: It is unfortunate; however it cannot be denied, that the archery hunting community across the United States has taken a stance to limit firearm hunting and crossbow hunting. In some states, Sunday firearm hunting is prohibited, while Sunday bow hunting is allowed. This is very favorable to the archery-only mindset and they fight like mad dogs to preserve this policy. Several years ago, the entire hunting community came together for the bow hunters to legalize bow hunting on Sunday. Farther back in history, bow hunting was on the top of the anti-hunting agenda, and gun hunters, some initially opposed to bow hunting, eventually supported bow hunting.
Not everyone is physically able to bow hunt. Although modern, expensive late-model bows and crossbows require much less physical strength than equipment of not so long ago; bow hunting still requires dragging out the dead weight of a deer over hill and dale. The vast majority of bow hunting is done from a tree stand and climbing trees is certainly not an option for everybody. Bow hunters in many states can hunt as close as 150 feet from houses or other buildings, giving them a large opportunity to avoid gun hunters.
Over several decades hunting license sales have shown a long term decline. This trend results in the loss of conservation revenue; loss of broad-based public support for hunting; and contributes to the outright banning of hunting through attrition. Although this trend has not been reversed, in recent years it has been slowed. A variety of factors have contributed to a small spike in hunting license sales. Some factors include increased female hunters and youth initiatives. Despite record populations of geese and most duck species; waterfowl hunters are down the most, almost 70% in Canada. Despite claims to the contrary; the popularity of the TV show Duck Dynasty, has not generated interest in waterfowl hunting. The number of NJ waterfowl hunters, has remained about the same, with around 10,000 purchasing state duck stamps. For comparison, about 12,000 NJ pheasant stamps are sold, with an average of 50,000 pheasant liberated over 24 wildlife management areas and one federal recreation area. An average of 11,000 bobwhite are released on two wildlife management areas plus 800 more released on dog training areas on 10 additional wildlife management areas. These 37 land tracts must maintain suitable early successional habitat in order to accommodate the stocking program. Of NJ’s 2 million acres of open land, only 4% of it is early successional habitat. The program began in 1912 and in addition to maintaining critical early succession habitat since then, the NJ pheasant and bobwhite stocking program generates $2.6 million, annually of general economic activity. Approximately 12,000 pheasant and bobwhite hunters, who share a much smaller total hunting area, finance this entire program by purchase of state pheasant and bobwhite stamps at no cost to taxpayers. Non-hunting taxpayers benefit through this bird hunting program with $2.6 million dollars annually in general economic activity as well as significant ecological benefits. It is significant to note that early succession upland habitat is vital to biodiversity and both waterfowl and bobwhite and pheasant hunters; despite this, pheasant hunting programs across the USA are under attack and have not been expanded.
Two of the long-standing and chief concerns of wildlife conservation professionals are trophy hunting and the commercialization of hunting. Despite a trend in policy toward antler restrictions and/or so-called “quality deer management”; the reverting to trophy hunting mindset of the 1960s is concerning most wildlife professionals. The commercialization of hunting, with or without trophy hunting is especially deleterious, however, trophy hunting is easy to commercialize. The current generation of hunters over identifies with celebrity hunters and their TV shows, which is making money for some people while shaping both hunting policy and how hunting evolves. State wildlife agencies are not exempt from facilitating this, as the whitetail deer is a key stone species which lowers biodiversity, needs or should be controlled; and generates the most money for conservation. As such, it is the easiest form of hunting for state agencies to justify to non- hunters. However, this mode of operation might not be sustainable in the long run, for reasons beyond the scope of this topic.
Perhaps, more significant to the slight increase in hunting participation than the infusion of female hunters and youth programs; is the “locavore movement”. It is important that wildlife agencies begin to enumerate the number of locavore hunters. This trend is growing and constitutes new hunters who are interested in avoiding grocery store meat in favor of wild game as food. As such, they are not interested in eating venison at every meal. Although some traditional hunters reject these new hunters, this demography will build public support for hunting, rebuild the credibility of hunters and wildlife agencies, and provide political and financial support for biodiversity. Limiting opportunity for locavores is limiting all of the above. Not only do locavores seek a variety of wild game, many are urban people who might easily clean a pail of mourning doves in the sink of their apartment, but would be challenged to haul a deer upstairs and butcher it on their kitchen table.
Noise and Disturbing the Peace: The premise that the rapport of firearms and activity of hunters will disturb the peace and tranquility of NJ’s natural areas would not hold up under scrutiny. We can we boat, water ski, and fish on Sunday but not hunt?
Waterfowl: 57%of NJ’s waterfowlers do not oppose Sunday waterfowl hunting. 50% strongly support Sunday waterfowl hunting. No biological data supports the premise that Sunday waterfowl hunting will create excess hunting pressure.
Overharvest: no biological studies suggest Sunday hunting leads to over harvest of any game species. When people are opposed to something, the tendency is to suddenly adopt the precautionary principle and demand research. This is a hindering maneuver modeled after the federal endangered species act. There is no justification to research impacts of Sunday hunting, as it has occurred in the majority of states for a very long time with no known or suspected effects. No states, including those which recently repealed Sunday hunting bans, are looking to reverse and re-instate such bans.
Safety: hunting is one of the safest activities. Accidents among hunters are extremely low and incidents of hunters injuring non-hunters are almost non-existent. Moreover, hunting for grouse, woodcock, pheasant and cottontail are done in brushy, early succession habitat which is not conducive to trails and human passage. Waterfowl hunting occurs in rugged wetland. The only people who frequent these habitats are hunters, therefore it is very unlikely non-hunters will encounter persons in the act of hunting these species while recreating outdoors. Even on public hunting areas there are often safety zones which prohibit hunting. Although we don’t agree at all with that, they nevertheless exist on Pittman Robertson and duck stamp lands. Hunting is statistically safer than hiking, horseback riding, or even cheerleading. You are MORE LIKELY to be HIT BY LIGHTNING than shot by a hunter.
Interference by Sunday hunting: Designated recreational uses often prohibit hunting on certain lands, for example the vast majority of the park system. Additional lands, available to non-hunters, include those in which firearm discharge is prohibited by law for safety concerns.
Year round hunting: Limited hunting theoretically is allowed year round for certain species however, these forms of hunting are so lightly participated in that hunting should be considered a seasonal activity when the perspective is to evaluate managing different land uses.
Taxpayers pay for public lands: It is debated whether hunters actually pay for conservation and some assert that it is taxpayers who pay. We disagree with this premise; nevertheless, even if it were true, hunters are taxpayers and as such should have equal access to public lands.
Extra conservation police presence: Another fallacious idea is that Sunday hunting will require conservation police patrol on Sunday. Conservation police already patrol on Sundays and some of the 11 states that do not allow full Sunday hunting privileges report that one of the biggest hunting related violations is Sunday hunting. This begs the question; why is fishing allowed on Sunday, but not hunting?
Religion: several religions, including some Christian denominations worship on Saturday not Sunday. Adults and children can hunt AND attend church on Sunday. Nine of ten states with the highest church attendance also have Sunday hunting.
The premise that allowing Sunday hunting will take away money from other activities: Anti-hunters have argued in Michigan against mourning dove hunting claiming that expanding this hunting opportunity would not generate revenue because dove hunters would be hunting instead of attending football and basketball games. This idea fails to take into account that the revenue generated from hunting is two pronged. One prong is general economic activity and the other is conservation funding. Only hunting generates revenue specifically to fund conservation. This logic also undermines hunting as an American tradition and is engineered to reduce hunting license revenue by attrition. Putting it in the correct prospective, it is the competition of time and attention from activities such as baseball and football and many other activities, which have and continue to divert people’s time and attention away from hunting; not the vice versa. Such competition contributes to the loss of hunters through attrition and thereby loss of conservation funding derived from hunting. Since Sunday hunting and mourning dove hunting are logical ways to set back attrition, they are at the top of the anti-hunting agenda.
Rhode Island: this discussion would be remiss and incomplete without considering Rhode Island. Like NJ, Rhode Island is a densely populated, urbanized state, located in the northeast, with little open land and few hunters. Rhode Island allows both Sunday hunting and mourning dove hunting which maximizes hunting opportunities and works with available resources.
Most government organizations, particularly wildlife agencies; have decided that all identical letters (sometimes thousands); will count as one public comment and not more, thus invalidating the individual signatures. A petition may be considered an “identical letter”. To overcome this, we construct our form, coalition, and petition letters with numerous “talking points”; while purposely omitting numerous other talking points. This serves in a way to allow sportsmen and conservationists to not only raise these additional talking points in their own words; but also to increase the collective weight of the petition.
The Problem:
Prelude to The Problem: The more controversial the issue, the more important is absolute strict adherence to these concepts. Anything related to hunting is controversial; however some issues are exceedingly controversial such as Sunday hunting and Mourning Dove Hunting.
Sportsmen tend to make predictable mistakes, as they have been repeating the same errors for decades.
It is very important to do thorough fact checking. That mandates getting your information from reliable sources such as government wildlife agencies, universities, and peer-reviewed research journals. Only organizations such as The Wildlife Society, Ducks Unlimited (the mother organization, not local chapters), and the Wildlife Management Institute should be trusted.
While it is good to put your comments in your own words, your context must be PERFECT. Sometimes changing one word will alter the entire meaning of your message.
Do not purposely change context to embellish information to make it consistent with your personal agenda or opinion. Doing so is creating propaganda. If you wish to express a personal opinion or the opinion of your organization, back it up with facts that support it, do not embellish the facts. Doing so will not survive scrutiny and will diminish your credibility and will undermine the credibility of the hunting community and wildlife agencies. It will also add to confusion and waste everyone’s time, including employees of wildlife agencies.
If everyone sticks to the facts, it is not necessary to worry about everyone sticking together. Although true, whether in South Dakota or New Jersey; that in order to pass controversial legislation the hunting community must show enough unified strength; the concept of sticking together has been misaligned by certain national organizations representing hunters into a practice which is slowly eroding the credibility of hunters with the general public.
Be relevant, and do not use well known “logic flawed” arguments such as red herring, ad hominin, straw man, and all the others.
Do not attack, criticize, or stereotype any person or group. Remember, hunters are a minority group with very few friends outside of their own community. Broad-based public support is not an option, it is mandatory if hunting is not to be severely restricted or even outright banned. To achieve this essential broad support it is essential that every pro-hunting initiative or premise demonstrates benefit to both non-hunters AND non-game species.
Do not make hunting a Partisan issue – do not reference anything about Democrats or Republicans. Do not make hunting a Political Ideology – do not reference anything about “Liberals” or “Conservatives”, nor “left wing” or “right wing”.
Science-Based Decisions do NOT always favor hunting or hunters. Do not be hypocritical in this regard.
_________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points/Sunday Hunting/NJ:
Bow Hunting: It is unfortunate; however it cannot be denied, that the archery hunting community across the United States has taken a stance to limit firearm hunting and crossbow hunting. In some states, Sunday firearm hunting is prohibited, while Sunday bow hunting is allowed. This is very favorable to the archery-only mindset and they fight like mad dogs to preserve this policy. Several years ago, the entire hunting community came together for the bow hunters to legalize bow hunting on Sunday. Farther back in history, bow hunting was on the top of the anti-hunting agenda, and gun hunters, some initially opposed to bow hunting, eventually supported bow hunting.
Not everyone is physically able to bow hunt. Although modern, expensive late-model bows and crossbows require much less physical strength than equipment of not so long ago; bow hunting still requires dragging out the dead weight of a deer over hill and dale. The vast majority of bow hunting is done from a tree stand and climbing trees is certainly not an option for everybody. Bow hunters in many states can hunt as close as 150 feet from houses or other buildings, giving them a large opportunity to avoid gun hunters.
Over several decades hunting license sales have shown a long term decline. This trend results in the loss of conservation revenue; loss of broad-based public support for hunting; and contributes to the outright banning of hunting through attrition. Although this trend has not been reversed, in recent years it has been slowed. A variety of factors have contributed to a small spike in hunting license sales. Some factors include increased female hunters and youth initiatives. Despite record populations of geese and most duck species; waterfowl hunters are down the most, almost 70% in Canada. Despite claims to the contrary; the popularity of the TV show Duck Dynasty, has not generated interest in waterfowl hunting. The number of NJ waterfowl hunters, has remained about the same, with around 10,000 purchasing state duck stamps. For comparison, about 12,000 NJ pheasant stamps are sold, with an average of 50,000 pheasant liberated over 24 wildlife management areas and one federal recreation area. An average of 11,000 bobwhite are released on two wildlife management areas plus 800 more released on dog training areas on 10 additional wildlife management areas. These 37 land tracts must maintain suitable early successional habitat in order to accommodate the stocking program. Of NJ’s 2 million acres of open land, only 4% of it is early successional habitat. The program began in 1912 and in addition to maintaining critical early succession habitat since then, the NJ pheasant and bobwhite stocking program generates $2.6 million, annually of general economic activity. Approximately 12,000 pheasant and bobwhite hunters, who share a much smaller total hunting area, finance this entire program by purchase of state pheasant and bobwhite stamps at no cost to taxpayers. Non-hunting taxpayers benefit through this bird hunting program with $2.6 million dollars annually in general economic activity as well as significant ecological benefits. It is significant to note that early succession upland habitat is vital to biodiversity and both waterfowl and bobwhite and pheasant hunters; despite this, pheasant hunting programs across the USA are under attack and have not been expanded.
Two of the long-standing and chief concerns of wildlife conservation professionals are trophy hunting and the commercialization of hunting. Despite a trend in policy toward antler restrictions and/or so-called “quality deer management”; the reverting to trophy hunting mindset of the 1960s is concerning most wildlife professionals. The commercialization of hunting, with or without trophy hunting is especially deleterious, however, trophy hunting is easy to commercialize. The current generation of hunters over identifies with celebrity hunters and their TV shows, which is making money for some people while shaping both hunting policy and how hunting evolves. State wildlife agencies are not exempt from facilitating this, as the whitetail deer is a key stone species which lowers biodiversity, needs or should be controlled; and generates the most money for conservation. As such, it is the easiest form of hunting for state agencies to justify to non- hunters. However, this mode of operation might not be sustainable in the long run, for reasons beyond the scope of this topic.
Perhaps, more significant to the slight increase in hunting participation than the infusion of female hunters and youth programs; is the “locavore movement”. It is important that wildlife agencies begin to enumerate the number of locavore hunters. This trend is growing and constitutes new hunters who are interested in avoiding grocery store meat in favor of wild game as food. As such, they are not interested in eating venison at every meal. Although some traditional hunters reject these new hunters, this demography will build public support for hunting, rebuild the credibility of hunters and wildlife agencies, and provide political and financial support for biodiversity. Limiting opportunity for locavores is limiting all of the above. Not only do locavores seek a variety of wild game, many are urban people who might easily clean a pail of mourning doves in the sink of their apartment, but would be challenged to haul a deer upstairs and butcher it on their kitchen table.
Noise and Disturbing the Peace: The premise that the rapport of firearms and activity of hunters will disturb the peace and tranquility of NJ’s natural areas would not hold up under scrutiny. We can we boat, water ski, and fish on Sunday but not hunt?
Waterfowl: 57%of NJ’s waterfowlers do not oppose Sunday waterfowl hunting. 50% strongly support Sunday waterfowl hunting. No biological data supports the premise that Sunday waterfowl hunting will create excess hunting pressure.
Overharvest: no biological studies suggest Sunday hunting leads to over harvest of any game species. When people are opposed to something, the tendency is to suddenly adopt the precautionary principle and demand research. This is a hindering maneuver modeled after the federal endangered species act. There is no justification to research impacts of Sunday hunting, as it has occurred in the majority of states for a very long time with no known or suspected effects. No states, including those which recently repealed Sunday hunting bans, are looking to reverse and re-instate such bans.
Safety: hunting is one of the safest activities. Accidents among hunters are extremely low and incidents of hunters injuring non-hunters are almost non-existent. Moreover, hunting for grouse, woodcock, pheasant and cottontail are done in brushy, early succession habitat which is not conducive to trails and human passage. Waterfowl hunting occurs in rugged wetland. The only people who frequent these habitats are hunters, therefore it is very unlikely non-hunters will encounter persons in the act of hunting these species while recreating outdoors. Even on public hunting areas there are often safety zones which prohibit hunting. Although we don’t agree at all with that, they nevertheless exist on Pittman Robertson and duck stamp lands. Hunting is statistically safer than hiking, horseback riding, or even cheerleading. You are MORE LIKELY to be HIT BY LIGHTNING than shot by a hunter.
Interference by Sunday hunting: Designated recreational uses often prohibit hunting on certain lands, for example the vast majority of the park system. Additional lands, available to non-hunters, include those in which firearm discharge is prohibited by law for safety concerns.
Year round hunting: Limited hunting theoretically is allowed year round for certain species however, these forms of hunting are so lightly participated in that hunting should be considered a seasonal activity when the perspective is to evaluate managing different land uses.
Taxpayers pay for public lands: It is debated whether hunters actually pay for conservation and some assert that it is taxpayers who pay. We disagree with this premise; nevertheless, even if it were true, hunters are taxpayers and as such should have equal access to public lands.
Extra conservation police presence: Another fallacious idea is that Sunday hunting will require conservation police patrol on Sunday. Conservation police already patrol on Sundays and some of the 11 states that do not allow full Sunday hunting privileges report that one of the biggest hunting related violations is Sunday hunting. This begs the question; why is fishing allowed on Sunday, but not hunting?
Religion: several religions, including some Christian denominations worship on Saturday not Sunday. Adults and children can hunt AND attend church on Sunday. Nine of ten states with the highest church attendance also have Sunday hunting.
The premise that allowing Sunday hunting will take away money from other activities: Anti-hunters have argued in Michigan against mourning dove hunting claiming that expanding this hunting opportunity would not generate revenue because dove hunters would be hunting instead of attending football and basketball games. This idea fails to take into account that the revenue generated from hunting is two pronged. One prong is general economic activity and the other is conservation funding. Only hunting generates revenue specifically to fund conservation. This logic also undermines hunting as an American tradition and is engineered to reduce hunting license revenue by attrition. Putting it in the correct prospective, it is the competition of time and attention from activities such as baseball and football and many other activities, which have and continue to divert people’s time and attention away from hunting; not the vice versa. Such competition contributes to the loss of hunters through attrition and thereby loss of conservation funding derived from hunting. Since Sunday hunting and mourning dove hunting are logical ways to set back attrition, they are at the top of the anti-hunting agenda.
Rhode Island: this discussion would be remiss and incomplete without considering Rhode Island. Like NJ, Rhode Island is a densely populated, urbanized state, located in the northeast, with little open land and few hunters. Rhode Island allows both Sunday hunting and mourning dove hunting which maximizes hunting opportunities and works with available resources.