Post by Weasel on Apr 27, 2005 15:25:27 GMT -5
Here is the responce I will soon be sending to the USFWS. I used a base letter from NAFA and heavily modified it to suit my opinions. I suggest every other licensed falconer do the same to aid in getting the regulations updated to suit our sport.
April 27, 2005
Chief, Division of Migratory Birds
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Mail Stop MBSP-4107
Arlington, VA 22203-1616
Re: Comments for Consideration in Response to USFWS’s Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry: 70 Federal Register 26, 9
February 2005 at 69787. RIN 1018-AG11
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept the following comments on the proposed rule covering the regulation of falconry.
I have been a licensed falconer in the state of Texas for two years now and I also volunteer in a rehabilitation center for raptors. I have a passion not only to fly my birds, but also to educate the public about raptors and their habitats. This is why I have taken the time to state some of my views on the proposed regulations that have recently come about.
I agree with the change proposed by the USFWS in regards to the elimination of the federal permit. It is not only supported by the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and the North American Falconer’s Association (NAFA) but by every falconer I am in contact with as well. This elimination will ease the financial burden on falconers and will also decrease redundant paperwork and costs for the service. In my opinion this is a long overdo change that will benefit both falconers and the USFWS alike.
The regulation allowing apprentices to fly captive bred birds is a subject I strongly disagree with. This scenario can lead to many ill-trained and un-releasable birds if the apprentice decides to drop out of the sport. It can also lead to the death of captive bred birds lost in the wild from starvation and predation. This is more likely to happen to an inexperienced apprentice, but if he where flying a passage trapped bird, it would have the much needed experience for continued survival in the wild upon loss or release.
The tradition of requiring an apprentice to trap a wild bird ensures that native raptor biology and ecology are observed and learned by the aspiring falconer. A falconer who has gained this knowledge through field studies, to successfully locate and trap a wild raptor, is in the best long-term interest of the resource. The falconer will also gain a deeper respect for the birds by understanding their habitat and their means of survival. On top of this, many construe removal of the apprentice trapping requirement, myself included, to be the first step for removal of wild take of raptors for falconry. This I adamantly oppose. Trapping a wild bird can also be looked at as a small means of conservation as well since we are increasing the likely hood of it's survival by allowing the birds to hone their skills while being kept in peak condition with both, nutrition and medical care that they would not receive in the wild. This aspect not only gives the falconer a closer relationship and respect for the wild bird, but it will instill a sense of pride knowing that they will release a healthy bird back into the wild someday.
I do support allowing apprentice falconers to trap and use passage Harris’s hawks, but only in areas that the loss or release of the bird would make possible its survival in a natural habitat. [Case in point: An apprentice falconer in Montana would not be allowed to trap a passage Harris’s hawk due to the birds inability to survive in the given habitat if it were lost or released for any reason.]
I am opposed to the regulation that states falconers must have 5 years of experience at the general level to take on an apprentice. This will severely limit the number of able-bodied sponsors for an apprentice to choose from. This could create more issues if an apprentice can only find an experienced falconer that lives 150 miles away. This could cause a situation referred to as a “paper sponsor” to become a more common sight in future. What will this do for the apprentice’s hands-on training? Having a good selection of sponsors for an apprentice to choose from, allows him/her to choose someone that has the practical experience it the area of falconry they wish to pursue, such as squirrel hawking, rabbit hawking or bird hawking. When I became involved in this sport, I searched around until I found a sponsor that knew how to teach me the specific type of hunting I desired. It would have done me little good had I apprenticed under a falconer who has only flown a peregrine for the past 35 years and never once flown a Red-tailed hawk on my intended quarry. By limiting the amount of sponsors, you limit the apprentice’s chances of finding someone with the specific guidance they need.
In the absence of the Federal falconry permit, as proposed, I would like to see the USFWS retain the current rule restricting States from interfering with the transportation of raptors used in falconry during interstate commerce. Also, if a State were to lose its certification to administer a falconry program, the USFWS should allow the affected falconers to keep their birds under a non-resident permit from another State instead of the proposed transfer or euthanasia.
Another point of contention with falconers regarding law enforcement actions is the seizure of raptors. For issues involving minor infractions, Bonding should be an option for falconers in lieu of seizure of legally possessed raptors by law enforcement. Several incidents where a 3-186a form was not done correctly have resulted in the confiscation of birds, some under medical treatment, with no word on their condition or if they will be returned. The best care for these birds, unless gross negligence in husbandry or intentional illegal activities was the case, should be in the falconer’s direct possession.
In addition, to reduce the potential liability associated with a trained bird taking a protected species by accident, the USFWS should consider enacting a “let-it-lay” rule for falconry, as has been adopted in many States, since the birds ultimately decide what they want to hunt once released. We can only provide them an area where we are most likely to encounter the intended legal quarry.
Considering that Canada, the USA, and Mexico are all in the MBTA together, I would like to see the USFWS consider adopting a passport system for falconry birds as allowed under CITES. This would greatly reduce the red tape associated with U.S. falconers taking their birds to Canada or Mexico for hunting and/or falconry meets, or vice versa.
In conclusion, unless otherwise stated in this letter, I fully support the positions and recommendations of the North American Falconer’s Association. I appreciate your consideration of these issues and of the sport of Falconry.
April 27, 2005
Chief, Division of Migratory Birds
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Mail Stop MBSP-4107
Arlington, VA 22203-1616
Re: Comments for Consideration in Response to USFWS’s Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry: 70 Federal Register 26, 9
February 2005 at 69787. RIN 1018-AG11
To Whom It May Concern:
Please accept the following comments on the proposed rule covering the regulation of falconry.
I have been a licensed falconer in the state of Texas for two years now and I also volunteer in a rehabilitation center for raptors. I have a passion not only to fly my birds, but also to educate the public about raptors and their habitats. This is why I have taken the time to state some of my views on the proposed regulations that have recently come about.
I agree with the change proposed by the USFWS in regards to the elimination of the federal permit. It is not only supported by the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) and the North American Falconer’s Association (NAFA) but by every falconer I am in contact with as well. This elimination will ease the financial burden on falconers and will also decrease redundant paperwork and costs for the service. In my opinion this is a long overdo change that will benefit both falconers and the USFWS alike.
The regulation allowing apprentices to fly captive bred birds is a subject I strongly disagree with. This scenario can lead to many ill-trained and un-releasable birds if the apprentice decides to drop out of the sport. It can also lead to the death of captive bred birds lost in the wild from starvation and predation. This is more likely to happen to an inexperienced apprentice, but if he where flying a passage trapped bird, it would have the much needed experience for continued survival in the wild upon loss or release.
The tradition of requiring an apprentice to trap a wild bird ensures that native raptor biology and ecology are observed and learned by the aspiring falconer. A falconer who has gained this knowledge through field studies, to successfully locate and trap a wild raptor, is in the best long-term interest of the resource. The falconer will also gain a deeper respect for the birds by understanding their habitat and their means of survival. On top of this, many construe removal of the apprentice trapping requirement, myself included, to be the first step for removal of wild take of raptors for falconry. This I adamantly oppose. Trapping a wild bird can also be looked at as a small means of conservation as well since we are increasing the likely hood of it's survival by allowing the birds to hone their skills while being kept in peak condition with both, nutrition and medical care that they would not receive in the wild. This aspect not only gives the falconer a closer relationship and respect for the wild bird, but it will instill a sense of pride knowing that they will release a healthy bird back into the wild someday.
I do support allowing apprentice falconers to trap and use passage Harris’s hawks, but only in areas that the loss or release of the bird would make possible its survival in a natural habitat. [Case in point: An apprentice falconer in Montana would not be allowed to trap a passage Harris’s hawk due to the birds inability to survive in the given habitat if it were lost or released for any reason.]
I am opposed to the regulation that states falconers must have 5 years of experience at the general level to take on an apprentice. This will severely limit the number of able-bodied sponsors for an apprentice to choose from. This could create more issues if an apprentice can only find an experienced falconer that lives 150 miles away. This could cause a situation referred to as a “paper sponsor” to become a more common sight in future. What will this do for the apprentice’s hands-on training? Having a good selection of sponsors for an apprentice to choose from, allows him/her to choose someone that has the practical experience it the area of falconry they wish to pursue, such as squirrel hawking, rabbit hawking or bird hawking. When I became involved in this sport, I searched around until I found a sponsor that knew how to teach me the specific type of hunting I desired. It would have done me little good had I apprenticed under a falconer who has only flown a peregrine for the past 35 years and never once flown a Red-tailed hawk on my intended quarry. By limiting the amount of sponsors, you limit the apprentice’s chances of finding someone with the specific guidance they need.
In the absence of the Federal falconry permit, as proposed, I would like to see the USFWS retain the current rule restricting States from interfering with the transportation of raptors used in falconry during interstate commerce. Also, if a State were to lose its certification to administer a falconry program, the USFWS should allow the affected falconers to keep their birds under a non-resident permit from another State instead of the proposed transfer or euthanasia.
Another point of contention with falconers regarding law enforcement actions is the seizure of raptors. For issues involving minor infractions, Bonding should be an option for falconers in lieu of seizure of legally possessed raptors by law enforcement. Several incidents where a 3-186a form was not done correctly have resulted in the confiscation of birds, some under medical treatment, with no word on their condition or if they will be returned. The best care for these birds, unless gross negligence in husbandry or intentional illegal activities was the case, should be in the falconer’s direct possession.
In addition, to reduce the potential liability associated with a trained bird taking a protected species by accident, the USFWS should consider enacting a “let-it-lay” rule for falconry, as has been adopted in many States, since the birds ultimately decide what they want to hunt once released. We can only provide them an area where we are most likely to encounter the intended legal quarry.
Considering that Canada, the USA, and Mexico are all in the MBTA together, I would like to see the USFWS consider adopting a passport system for falconry birds as allowed under CITES. This would greatly reduce the red tape associated with U.S. falconers taking their birds to Canada or Mexico for hunting and/or falconry meets, or vice versa.
In conclusion, unless otherwise stated in this letter, I fully support the positions and recommendations of the North American Falconer’s Association. I appreciate your consideration of these issues and of the sport of Falconry.
