September 11, 2004.  Richard Currie Smith. Star Tribune
DNR aims at doves and kills its credibility
 

Over the last several years, Minnesota sportsmen's groups and their advocates, such as the Outdoors writers of this newspaper, have lamented the lack of public support for programs to benefit wildlife and for the creation of an independently funded state Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The establishment this September of a mourning dove hunting season by the Minnesota Legislature, after 56 years of the bird's protection as a nongame species, is a vivid example of why the nonhunting nature enthusiasts of this state, who greatly outnumber the state's continually decreasing population of hunters, are losing faith in sportsmen and the DNR when it comes to preserving and restoring our natural environment and why they do not get behind their initiatives.

Shooting the delicate and slow-moving mourning dove that is loved by innumerable Minnesotans for its gentle cooing and role as a symbol of peace, primarily for autumn target practice and not for consumption, serves only to validate the worst stereotypes of hunters as amoral killers of innocent animals whose unethical actions denigrate the sanctity of life. The importance of the mourning dove as a charismatic species that helps Minnesotans connect to the beauty and spiritual quality of the state's natural environment should make the DNR strive to increase dove numbers through better oversight, not to initiate a dove hunting season that would decrease their presence.

We need to remember that the DNR is supposed to be the guardian of the natural world in Minnesota. When DNR nongame wildlife program supervisor Carrol Henderson states in defense of this new legislation (Sports, Aug. 29), "The mourning dove technically is not a songbird...they have a different structure in their larynx and different feather patterns...[and that the Biblical references] would be referring to one of the native doves of the Middle East, like the white turtledove," the agency's credibility flies right out the window.

As the old adage goes, if it coos like a dove, nests like a dove and mates for life like a dove, it's a dove! All of us know this, including the wildlife experts at the DNR. Their dove hunting rationalizations are at best misleading and at worst disingenuous. Granted DNR funding is weighted too heavily on collecting hunting fees and this must be changed; however, that should not alter the DNR's essential mission from being a custodian of nature to being a marketing arm for sportsmen.

Ecologically, there is no valid defense for a dove hunting season in Minnesota. First of all, dove hunters are allowed to use lead shot that pollutes the landscape. This is because steel shot is too expensive to use on these small birds that take over a half-dozen carcasses to make into a meal if they are not randomly discarded, as most will be. Second, no studies show an increase in Minnesota dove numbers that would warrant DNR management through hunting. Finally, in the farm country of southwestern Minnesota where the majority of doves reside, these birds, ground-feeders that eat weed seeds, decrease the need for chemical pesticides that contribute to the water pollution that plagues this area of the state.

At a vigil on the State Capitol steps on the eve of the official start of the mourning dove hunting season, approximately 200 people listened as speakers condemned the hunt and pledged to work unceasingly to get the law repealed. Some of the legislators who spoke said that this was the most contentious issue of the legislative session and the one that engendered the most protest from their constituents. Is this antagonism toward hunting what sportsmen's groups and their advocates really want? Is this any way to engender trust and support for the DNR?

Since the preservation and restoration of Minnesota's natural environment increasingly depends on the state's nonhunting majority of nature enthusiasts and less and less on its dwindling numbers of hunters, cooperation and collaboration with environmental organizations that represent nonhunters must be a goal of sportsmen and the DNR if they are to regain credibility and remain relevant in regard to environmental issues.

Richard Currie Smith, Minneapolis, is an environmental consultant.