New falconry laws

[ccrobbins]

And how well you can provide for the bird you do choose!

[bobdale]

The regs can allow a master to keep five birds, but that doesn't mean that every master will keep the allowable limit. Most masters have enough experience to know their limitations.
I know some 25 y/o ppl who are to immature to have an apprentice permit, and some 12 y/os who are more than mature enough to be licensed.
The regs already allow apprentices to keep a RS, but it's forbidden in MO. If the falconers in a given area think that the impact of illegally released CBHHs is a real threat, let them voice that and have their State agencies make the final decision. Personally, i don't find RTs any harder to train than HHs.
I like the hybrid sterilization thing.
I like the on-line paper work aspect.
Finally, they're using some common sense regarding the use of falconry birds in breeding programs.
I'm glad they're putting it back in the hands of the states. Good riddance Feds!!! One less fee to pay, too.
We have more influence on the state level than we ever did on a federal level by virtue of our state clubs. Let the feds lessen the regs and give the states the lattitude to do what is right for their area.

[Jay]

Bob watch what you say about the fees. I will bet a good sum of money that you will end up paying more than you already do with the feds. This will put more power with the states and they will rase their permit prices.

[jondarp]

Good points being made here by all. However, here are a couple of things that I would like to remind people about if I might.

The states are not really gaining any more power under the proposed regulations. The proposal is simply to eliminate the federal permit system. That doesn't necessarily equate to states raising their permit fees. What would the justification for such an increase be? Added administrative burden? Not likely, since, according to my state falconry program coordinator, the states already do most of the leg work regarding permits as it is.

Also, states can already increase their permit fees if they see fit. They don't need to use the feds getting out of the permit business as a justification. Even if a state does try for a permit fee increase, it doesn't simply happen in a vacuum. There has to be some type of public hearing or legislative process. In Connecticut , that would mean revising the state falconry regs, having a public hearing and getting everything approved by the state legislature's regulations review committee. It's hardly a slam dunk.

The other important point is remember it that we should try to find a balance between government involvement and self-policing. Some of the things that many find restrictive about falconry are the very same things that actually protect falconers' rights (e.g., wild take.)

That being said, I don't believe it is the government's job to legislate people into being good falconers, nor do I think that works. If the new regs mean less government involvement then I'm all for it. If it means that the falconry community has to prove that we can be responsible and make responsible decisions about the way we practice falconry then I say bring it on!

If you are a sponsor that doesn't want to sponsor a 12-year old or sponsor an apprentice who wants to fly a Harris's Hawk, then you won't be forced to so. Personally, I don't like the idea of Harris's Hawks being available to apprentices or lowering the age to 12, but if we keep the regs the way they are, are we, in effect, asking the government to do our jobs for us?

I'm sure that everyone has heard stories about bad "paper" sponsors and apprentices who get into the sport for all the wrong reasons, but will that increase under the proposed regs? Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems to me that we can safely practice this sport with very little government oversight. Yes, there will be abuses to the system as there are in any facet of life, but are we saying to the feds that we can't self-police our own sport?

Keep in mind that falconry was being practiced in this country for some time before there were ANY falconry regulations written. My point is that we need to be very thoughtful about how and where we ask for government involvement in falconry affairs.

On many falconry forums, I hear people talk about "they" as in "They are trying to do this to us" or "They are trying to force us to do that." Well, the exisiting regs were written by falconers and the proposed regs can definitely be shaped by falconers if we get involved.

We, as falconers (or soon-to-be falconers) have a voice and, as Yarak noted before, it's important that voice be heard. It's like voting in the presidential election. You may not like the end result, but if you step up, voice your opinion and get involved in the process, at least it will give you the right to complain about things. But if we sit on our hands and let this golden opportunity pass, we will have no one to blame but ourselves and we no right to complain about the regs. Just my opinion, of course.

- Jon D.

[Strider]

Very well spoken

[Weasel]

Jon, Thak you as always for your well spoken outlook on this subject.
Cheers,
Weasel

[rt]

Well said

[bobdale]

I see this as an opportunity to decrease federal involvement in falconry. And Jon is right in saying the less federal involvement the better. For my moeny, they could drop fed regs all together and let the states make their own rules... or better yet, the state's falconry clubs can run the show! Actually, i think the rules would be very tight if we ran the show ourselves. Perhaps even to tight. If nothing else, Fed regs guarantee our right to practice the sport.

[Ooby]

A little note on the increase for number of birds that master falconers can have to 5. I was helping a friend finish up a new mews, and a couple other falconers came over to help too. We got to talking about it and it was mentioned that the increase of birds allowed on the normal falconry permit will allow breeders to fly more birds after hatching.

Example: You breed some birds. You want to get these birds started for customers and get them on the creance, or just keyed in on the balloon. Any bird that you FLY, has to be on a falconry permit. The breeders permit only allows you to breed them and keep them. If you want to jess em up and fly them for ANY reason, you have to transfer them to your falconry liscence.

So this will allow for breeders to start birds with more ease. Hell, some people i know just want to get the new birds they bred out and fly em to see how well they fly. You wouldn't want to sell a bird to someone for thousands of dollars if the bird had some defect or just didn't fly well, or any of a hundred different things.

But this increase will be good.

[wes]

I'm surprized!
I received a letter today inviting me to a meeting to discuss the New Regs. by The Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries in May, hope everyone's state has a open policy as I'm blessed with. ;D
They also sent me a copy (16 pages)
of the Fedral Register with the proposed changes, wish I understood it better. I'm going reread it again

Does anyone have a SIMPLE outline listing all the proposed changes?
wes

[wes]

I've got mixed feelings on this one.
How do you'll feel about "Hybrids must be imprinted on humans or surgically sterilized if used in falconry. When flown Hybrids would have transmiter attached.
Think Hybrids should all be sterilized that are flown free? or is imprinting on humans and a transmiter enough to always retrieve a lost bird. I'm not sure. Release of hybrids is illegal. What problems would a lost fertile hybrid cause to a local eco system?
wes

[Riker]

I think that hybrids should be sterlized when flown. just bc the bird is an imprint with a transmitter dosnt make 100% you will get that bird back. but there is no scientific evidence to see if hybrids can breed in the wild (actually that would be a cool masters project) but i wouldnt be suprised if some of them can. and if so that could really do weird things to local comunites genetics. but that is just me

[Minca]

I really think that the imprinting is not as much for the purpose of getting the bird back but more likely because imprints don't normally breed. They view other birds differently than a parent raised bird would, and that keeps the wild population from getting polluted. That's just what I understood though.

[frootdog]

Just a reminder to EVERYONE. Comments on the new regs are due no later than May 10, 2005. You MUST reference RIN 1018-AG11 in your response. If sending via email just send it in the subject line. NAFA members may check the website for some guidelines, sample letters, and NAFA positions, as well as recommendations to be ADDED to the rec reg changes. If you are not a NAFA member check with your state club for guidance. If you are not a member of either you should be for situations such as this. It is not too late to join NAFA. Please it is IMPERATIVE that ALL falconers and falconry supporters comment on these regs.

[Weasel]

I'm working on my responce right now and it will be sent within a few days.