BlackHawke
25-04-2005, 02:29 PM
i received this huge email regarding changes to the US law around falconry! we may moan about certain areas of falconry but it sounds to me like over here we are nowhere near as strict as in the US
sorry its so long i've just cut and paste it! mods if u wanna delete it i wont be to upset!!! :cry:
I?ve mentioned several times over the past few months that I would post my comments when they were completed. Please feel free to forward this along to other falconers that may be interested.
The deadline for comments is May 10th, I urge every falconer to send comments as soon as possible. And George Allen has mentioned that falconers can send additions to their comments so if you have already sent yours but would like to comment on another issue, it is allowed.
My comments on eagle regulations are not included in this comment but will be sent as a seperate comment. In short I support the recommendations of NAFA's eagle committee. The only thing I added was that I requested that they eliminate the requirment for a falconer to submit letters to get an eagle permit. I feel being a master falconer is sufficient experience to get an eagle permit.
Eric Edwards
DATE: 21 February 2005
TO: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, and Dr. George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
REGARDING: RIN number 1018-AG11 (Proposed changes in the regulations governing the practice of falconry in the United States)
FROM: Eric Edwards, 1150 Lake Elbert Dr SE, Winter Haven, FL 33880; (863) 221-9401; Eric.Edwards@verizon.net
OVERVIEW:
I am writing in response to the Service's proposed changes to the Federal falconry regulations. I am a licensed US falconer with twelve years experience. I would first like to thank the service for their thoughtful consideration of these issues. It?s obvious that a lot of work went into this proposal and the needs of falconers were taken into consideration.
Comments:
I?ve given serious consideration to all of the following issues and they are all important but the first four are very important to me and I would consider them a priority.
(1) Protection from accidental take of protected migratory birds
I would like to see the addition of a provision to protect a falconer should his/her bird accidentally take a protected migratory bird. No matter how hard a falconer tries to focus his/her bird?s attention to the falconer?s intended quarry occasionally a falconer?s bird is bound to kill unintentional prey. Nearly all of this prey is the natural diet of the raptor and the bird doesn?t always understand that it?s illegal for him to chase this prey while on the falconer?s permit.
A falconer walking a field in search of pheasants for a falcon high overhead is apt to unintentionally flush a protected migratory bird and it would be impossible for the falconer to prevent his/her bird from giving chase to this natural prey item.
Many states have seen the necessity and passed ?let-it-lay? laws to protect falconers when their birds catch game species such as rabbits, squirrels, etc. when out of season. But without provisions from the USFWS similar laws cannot include migratory birds.
I propose the following language be added:
?Should a raptor accidentally take any species of protected migratory bird, during the course of permitted falconry activity, the falconer may not retain or possess the quarry, but the raptor may feed upon the quarry before leaving the site of the kill.?
(2) Allowing falconers to trap for one another
In regard to trapping, I was very pleased with some of the clarification of acceptable chain of custody when taking a bird from a nest and I support being able to temporarily keep a falconry bird while trying to trap another. But I also think it should be permissible to trap a bird and give it to another falconer within five days (or the allowed reporting timeframe) and it not count against the take limit of the falconer that trapped the bird.
?(vii) If you are not present at the immediate location where the bird is taken from the wild, the person who removes the bird from the wild must have a permit to do so, and must report take of the bird by entering the required information in the electronic database at http://permits.fws.gov/186A within 5 days of the capture of the bird. If that person then transfers the bird to you, you must both file 3?186A forms reporting the transaction within 5 days of the transfer. The bird will count as one of the two birds the person who took it from the wild is allowed to capture in any calendar year. The bird will not count as a bird you took from the wild. The person who takes the bird from the wild must report the take even if he or she promptly transfers the bird to another falconry permittee.?
I think if it is legal for a bird to be taken and given to another falconer who is ten feet away, why not ten miles away? Why any limit on distance, provided each bird is properly accounted for? If the bird is taken legally by a licensed falconer, and its possession is reported within 5 days, it should make no difference which licensed falconer first brought the bird into possession. In short, I think a falconer should be able to take a bird out of the wild for another falconer. If a chain of custody needs to be established, then I propose the addition of a ?taken by? field on the 3-186a form.
I would like to suggest the following change:
?"If you are not present at the immediate location where the bird is taken from the wild, the person who removes the bird from the wild must have a permit to do so, and YOU must report take of the bird by entering the required information in the electronic database at http://permits.fws.gov/186a within 5 days of the capture of the bird. (eliminate part about transfer) The bird will count as one of the two birds YOU are allowed to capture in any calendar year. ?
I agree with the spirit of this law; in principle I think falconers need to be able to trap their own birds but it?s not always necessary and I?d like to provide a few examples of that.
On the east coast there are several falconers who trap and fly merlins each year. We are limited to trapping during a very short window of opportunity, the annual fall migration. Merlins only pass through for a few weeks each year. We are all very experienced at merlin trapping and flying; it?s not a matter of lacking the ability.
To increase our chances of obtaining our one or two birds for the year we often separate and set up multiple trapping stations along the coast or even across the intra-coastal waterway. There may only be three of us out trapping but it doesn?t make much sense to all man the same trapping station. Under the proposed regs it would require a lot of paperwork shuffling to pass birds between us. I believe it?s unnecessary paperwork. If the bird is taken by someone who?s permitted to do so and is put on a permit within the allowed time, it shouldn?t matter who took it and who ended up with it.
Another example is when a group of falconers travel a great distance to obtain a species not found in their area. Let?s say three falconers from Florida travel to Kansas to trap prairie falcons for five days, all very experienced falconers and experienced prairie falcon trappers.
Prairies are typically trapped by driving around until one is spotted then the falconer attempts to set up a trap. It would be far more efficient if these three falconers split up and searched independently for birds. But under the proposed regs if one of these falconers had a more productive day and caught three birds a lot of paperwork would be required to transfer them to the others in his group, and in fact he wouldn?t even be able to keep all three birds, one would have to be released due to the fact that he can only take two birds out of the wild per year.
Last example: A falconer of 30 years loses his bird two days before the end of his state?s trapping season. He decides to get a red tailed hawk to finish out the season. Under the proposed regulations he would not be able to get his falconry friends to help him get a bird to finish out his season. He would have a much better chance if a handful of falconers pitched in to assist him in locating and trapping a bird.
This is also something that falconers have always done. Most interpreted the current regs to allow this, perhaps incorrectly. But why should distance matter? If the bird is legally taken and put on a permit within the allowed time, a lot of paperwork shuffling should not be necessary.
(3) Another person caring for my bird
?(6) May another person care for my falconry birds for me? Yes, another person who can legally possess raptors can care for a raptor or raptors for you for up to 45 consecutive calendar days. The other person must have a signed and dated statement from you authorizing the temporary possession, plus a copy of FWS form 3-186A that shows that you are the possessor of the bird. The statement must include information about the time period for which he or she will keep the bird(s), and about what he or she is allowed to do with the bird or birds (including exercising them for falconry, which may be done if the other person has a falconry permit at the appropriate level). The bird(s) will remain on your falconry permit. If the person who temporarily holds a bird or birds for you is a falconer, the bird(s) that he or she holds for you will not be counted against his or her possession limit on birds held for falconry.?
Please change the second sentence to read: ?Yes, another person who is qualified to care for raptors can care for a raptor or raptors for you for up to 45 consecutive calendar days.?
There are many people who are qualified to handle raptors who do not have permits. I worked in the zoo industry for many years and there were dozens of staff members who did shows and cared for raptors but none of these individuals held permits themselves. Yet, they are very capable of caring for a raptor. There are many people who work for rehab centers who do not have their own permits but are qualified to care for raptors.
Please add the following to this section:
?If the bird(s) will be in their approved facilities any person may care for the bird in the falconers absence, such as, but not limited to a spouse, family member, neighbor or friend.?
When a falconer goes out of town it is very common for his children or spouse to care for his bird. Most falconers? family members are very familiar with the care of falconry birds. When a bird is in its own facilities there is usually nothing more required than putting food in for the bird.
If I went out of town for the weekend and left my bird at home with my wife could I be cited for leaving the bird with an unlicensed falconer? It seems so by strict interpretation of the regulation.
(4) Bonding for falconry birds
I would like to see language added that would allow a falconer to post a bond for a falconry bird. If a falconer is found in violation of a wildlife-related offense, he should be able to pay a bond and keep his bird(s), as opposed to having them automatically confiscated; birds have died and been ruined under unsuitable care, and their confiscation before the falconer?s trial is a punitive measure tantamount to presumption of guilt. It is in the interest of the bird?s health and welfare that it remains in its known environment with its most familiar and knowledgeable caretaker.
(5) Requiring a minimum seven years experience to sponsor
In the proposal, potential sponsors are required to have, "at least 5 years experience at the general falconer level, or [be] a master falconer."
I feel a minimum of seven years experience to sponsor (2 as apprentice, at least 5 as general) is excessive and would limit the number of potential sponsors, making it more difficult for apprentices to find a suitable mentor. I feel that the current system works just fine. I do not agree with increasing the level of experience required to be a sponsor.
(6) Apprentices flying captive bred birds
I know this is a hotly debated subject, but I support apprentices flying any captive bred bird. I?ll preface that by stating that I believe the job of the USFWS is to protect the species in the wild; to make sure the birds we use can tolerate a harvest, and to base their decisions on sound biology. Captive bred birds fall beyond this scope. I believe whether or not a particular apprentice ?should? fly a captive bred bird is best decided between that apprentice and his or her sponsor, and I trust that individual falconers are capable of making that decision.
I think this change will allow for great progress in the way we introduce new falconers to the sport. A very large number of falconers fly captive bred birds and will be able to teach their apprentice?s what they actually do. Now a falconer who has flown captive bred peregrines and lives in a great area for hunting with a peregrine can teach his new apprentice the nuances of the art he specializes in, benefiting both the apprentice and the sponsor.
If an apprentice (or any class) decides to get out of the sport I see no reason to assume that it would be difficult for that apprentice (or any class) to find a home for their captive bred bird. In my twelve years of practicing the sport I?ve never known any falconer to have a bird he couldn?t find a home for. There is always a home for unwanted birds: other falconers, breeders, or educational facilities.
(7) Elimination of the Federal Falconry Permit
I support the elimination of the federal falconry permit. I feel this will streamline the permitting process and eliminate a lot of paper-shuffling involved with our current system?which is managed largely by the states, anyway.
I am also really happy to see that an online database has been created to ease the process of reporting and tracking falconry birds and permits.
(8) State non-compliance
If my state fails to comply with the regulation, or decide at some future time to discontinue its regulation of falconry, my bird is immediately jeopardized. The Service offers this language to describe its disposition options:
"...we will require that all raptors held for falconry in that State or (including captive-bred raptors) be transferred to falconers in other States, transferred to captive propagation programs, released to the wild (if that is allowed by the State and by this section), or euthanized."
If my state fails to comply with these new regulations it seems unreasonable that I would lose possession, through no fault of my own, of a bird that I have spent considerable time and money on.
I would like to see language allowing the bird to remain in the possession of the falconer through the appeals process. I would further like for all captive-bred raptors held at the time of a state?s decertification remain the legal property of the falconer.
(9) Apprentice?s possessing Harris Hawks
I support apprentice?s being able to possess either wild trapped or captive bred harris hawks. I think they should be able to purchase these birds, have them transferred to them or trap them from the wild. This is one of the most popular birds in American Falconry and an obvious bird for a beginner.
(10) Purchasing captive bred raptors
This section:
(2) What permit and inspections do I need to practice falconry? You must have a valid falconry permit from the State in which you reside or the Tribe on whose land you wish to practice falconry, to take, possess, or transport raptors for falconry, or to hunt with them. Your raptor care facilities (see paragraph (c) of this section) must pass inspection by your State or Tribe before you may possess a raptor under a falconry permit. You must have a Federal raptor propagation permit to purchase, barter, or sell, or offer to purchase, barter, or sell, captive-bred raptors for falconry?
Do I need a propagation permit to buy a captive bred raptor, or to sell one to another licensed falconer? This is not the case now and I see no reason to require a propagation permit unless someone is intending to breed raptors.
(11) Apprentice Requirements
Under the section dealing with apprentice requirements
?(i) What are the requirements and possession options for an apprentice falconer?
(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform that your State or Tribe allows you to take and possess for falconry. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
This language is confusing. Some falconers have taken this to mean that an apprentice is limited to only captive-bred harris hawks, red tails, kestrels, red shoulders and goshawks in Alaska. It is my understanding that the service is proposing that apprentices can fly all species of captive-bred birds. I think the following language would be clearer.
(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform that your State or Tribe allows. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
(12) Throughout the proposal the document refers to things that the state or tribe allows. Even in the above comment I think these references could be eliminated. It?s already been established that the State or Tribe can be more restrictive I don?t think we need constant references to this fact throughout the regulations. The comment above could simply read:
?(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
I think it?s understood that the State must also allow it and that the State can be more restrictive than the above statement.
This language is present throughout the document and it seems that most instances could be eliminated to simplify the language.
(13) Upgrading to General
In this section:
(ii) What are the requirements and possession options for a general falconer? (A) You must be at least 18 years of age.
(B) You must have practiced falconry with your own raptor(s) at the apprentice falconer level for at least 2 years, including maintaining, flying, and hunting the raptor(s) for a total of at least 6 months each year. That practice may include capture and release of falconry birds.
In the above section, I would like to change the ?2 year? requirement to 18 months. The 2 year requirement often causes apprentices to go through three seasons as an apprentice. The new language clearly states that an apprentice must have 6 months each ?year.? The 2 year requirement is now unnecessary.
Or perhaps the regulations could require ?2 seasons? and provide a definition of a ?season? that would prevent the ?three year apprentice?.
To give an example of what I?m talking about, many law enforcement officials have literally interpreted the two year requirement and will not issue an upgrade until an apprentice has gone through 730 days as an apprentice.
If an apprentice gets his/her first permit in August they can reasonably fly their first bird for 6 months that season (Sept-Feb) and then fly another bird the following season for 6 months (Sept-Feb). However, many would be denied an upgrade until August (730 days from their first permit). They would not get their upgrade in time to take advantages of their general permit the third season. They would not then be allowed to pull an eyas from a nest in April because it has not been 730 days and they would not be able to purchase a captive-bred falcon in June or July (when they are commonly available).
There may be a better way to fix this problem but I think changing it from 2 years to 18 months would probably work.
(13) Reporting
The time frame for most of the reporting requirements in the proposal is 5 days. I would like to change all reporting time frames to a minimum of ?10 working days?.
Five days is unreasonable in many instances. If a falconer is traveling out of town and traps a new bird they will often not be home for a week (very typical vacation period). Or if a bird dies on a hawking trip in many instances a falconer will not have access to a computer until he gets back home and this could often be more than five days.
This is especially true in reference to the disposition of a bird. If a bird dies, a falconer should be given enough time to have post-mortems done to determine cause of death and many of these tests can take longer than five days. It might even take longer than five days to get an appointment to have the bird seen. Determining cause of death could be very important to the health of other birds in the falconer?s possession especially in the case of infectious disease.
(14) Facilities
In this section:
?(c) Facilities and care requirements. (1) What facilities must I have and maintain? The primary consideration for raptor ing facilities, whether indoors or outdoors, is protection from the environment, predators, domestic animals, and undue disturbance. You must have raptor housing facilities approved by your State or Tribe before you may obtain a bird for use in falconry. Your State or Tribe may require that you have both indoor and outdoor facilities. A representative of your State or tribal agency that regulates falconry, or its designee, must certify that your facilities and equipment meet the following standards. For keeping birds in either type facility, you must keep your facilities clean and must ensure the following.?
Please change the last sentence to ?For keeping birds in either type facility you must ensure the following.? I fear that requiring a facility be kept ?clean? can be over interpreted. A ?clean? house, bathroom or kitchen is far different than a ?clean? raptor facility. Even a healthy mews, one that is relatively clean, can look dirty or unkempt to the non-falconer and is open to interpretation.
In this section:
?(ii) The facility must have a suitable perch with a rough or uneven surface for each bird, at least one opening for sunlight, and an easy-to-clean and well-drained floor.?
Please change to:
?(ii) The facility must have a suitable perch for each bird, at least one opening for sunlight, and provide a healthy environment.?
I don?t like the specific reference to a ?rough? or ?uneven? perch. I feel it?s sufficient to merely require a ?suitable? perch. ?Rough? is very vague. Is stadium Astroturf ?rough?? I don?t know how it would be classified but it is a very good surface for perching.
And concrete is ?easy-to-clean? and ?well-drained? but it is not a good substrate for a facility. On the other hand, pea-gravel could bee seen as hard to clean but it?s a fantastic substrate.
In this section:
?(iii) You may house untethered raptors together if they are compatible. If they are not, each bird must be tethered or separated from others by solid partitions.?
Change to:
?(iii) You may house untethered raptors together if they are compatible.?
I feel the last sentence is unnecessary. It?s obvious that if they?re not ?compatible? they can?t be housed together. And the addition of a ?solid partition? is not always necessary. Just because two birds can see one another does not mean that it will cause them stress. Some may, but this should be handled on a case by case situation.
In this section:
?(B) If a bird you hold suffers feather damage or injury in your outdoor facility, you must modify the facility to preclude further feather damage or injury to the bird.?
This was not required or mentioned for an indoor facility but required for an outdoor facility. I would like this section removed. I would also like it removed because it is quite possible for a bird to injure itself in its facility through no fault of the facility. Even the best designed facility cannot guarantee that a bird will never injure itself.
And if not removed then reworded to eliminate the specific mention of ?feather damage?, there are many causes for a bird to break a feather and they do not all require the modification of their facility. And it would be very difficult for anyone to prove where or how a bird broke a feather. My fear is that this could be interpreted literally and if an officer saw a bird sitting in a facility and that bird had a broken feather, that was broken while pursuing quarry, the officer might request the facility be modified. Or even cite the falconer for not making modifications.
In this section:
?(4) What facilities must I have for a raptor when I am transporting it, using it for hunting, or I am away from my home with it? You must be sure that the bird has a perch with a rough or uneven surface and is protected from extreme temperatures, wind, and excessive disturbance.
If a bird you hold suffers feather damage or injury while you are transporting it, you must modify or change your transport methods immediately to preclude further feather damage or injury to the bird.?
Change to:
?(4) What facilities must I have for a raptor when I am transporting it, using it for hunting, or I am away from my home with it? You must be sure that the bird has a suitable perch and is protected from extreme temperatures, wind, and excessive disturbance.?
For the same reasons above I would like the section referring to ?feather damage? or ?injury? removed. Like children, a raptor can injure itself through no fault of the environment or their caretaker.
(15) Lowering the apprentice age to twelve years of age
I support lowering the age of apprentices to twelve. This falls in line with other hunting regulations (e.g., gun hunting, bow hunting) and seems logical to me. Incidentally, research shows that children introduced to hunting after the age of twelve are less likely to stick with it: There are simply too many distractions today, not all of them as wholesome and healthy as falconry.
Will all twelve year olds be capable of taking on falconry? I suspect not?neither are all fourteen year olds. But it should be left up to individual falconers to assess a potential apprentices? ability to take on the responsibility of falconry. That holds true at any age.
(16) Taking Raptors from the wild
?(ii) If you are an apprentice falconer, you may take only a first-year red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), or American kestrel (Falco sparverius) from the wild. If you reside in Alaska, you may take a first-year northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles)?
Please add Harris Hawks to this list for apprentices.
(17) Birds for apprentices
The list of wild birds an apprentice may possess is very limited and does not promote a good introduction to falconry in all states or situations. Allowing only red-tailed hawks, American Kestrels, red-shouldered hawks, harris hawks and goshawks for Alaska does not allow sponsors enough latitude in selecting the most appropriate bird for an apprentice.
I welcome the addition of the harris hawk and I would like to see apprentices have access to the same passage birds as general falconers. I do not feel they should be limited; starting out in falconry is difficult enough without limiting them to birds that may not be the best choice for their situation. I feel sponsors are capable of helping an apprentice make the best decision of an introductory bird.
If the research shows that falconry take has no impact on wild populations then I see no reason not to allow apprentices and sponsors more choices for the apprentice?s introduction to falconry.
(18) Conservation Education
?(8) May I use my falconry bird(s) for conservation education programs? Yes, if you are a general or master falconer, have not been convicted of a violation of tribal, State, or Federal falconry regulations in the last 5 years, and if a bird you hold for falconry, other than a golden eagle, is suitable for the purpose, you may use it in conservation education programs.?
I think it?s acceptable for apprentices to do these programs as well. I think we need all the conservation education we can get.
And I would like to see Golden Eagles allowed also, seeing raptors up close is a powerful experience and goes a long way to helping the species in the wild. I find conservation education very important. Rehabilitation centers, zoos and several non-profit organizations use golden and bald eagles for conservation education. I?ve even seen bald eagles flown in front of crowds for the start of baseball games and NASCAR races, I fail to see how a falconer using a golden for a talk to a boy scout group should not be allowed.
(19) Making movies
?(B) You may not use falconry birds to make movies, commercials, or in other such commercial ventures.?
I would like to see language added that makes it permissible for falconers to make ?falconry movies? or videos. Movies on the how-to aspects of falconry are very beneficial to the falconry community. And hunting videos are commonly produced now and should continue to be allowed.
(20) Feathers
?(ii) You must burn, bury, or otherwise destroy feathers that are not suitable for imping unless they are from a golden eagle.?
Must I collect every feather my bird leaves on the floor of his mew and burn, bury or destroy them? Am I allowed to just leave them there and let nature take its course? Am I allowed to throw them away?
I?m not sure of the best way to deal with this situation but when my birds are in the house the majority of his feathers are merely thrown away, after being vacuumed off the floor. Can I be cited for having body feathers on the floor of my mew? How much time do I have from the time the bird drops a feather until it?s burned, buried or destroyed? I find this a very difficult situation that could possibly be interpreted to strictly and lead to unnecessary citations.
(21) Masters possessing five bird
I support master falconers being able to possess five birds but I oppose the limit that only three of the five may be wild-caught. There have already been limits placed on the number of birds a falconer can take out of the wild per year. The number of birds a falconer has in his possession has no effect on the wild population and should not be limited.
Regarding Captive bred birds, these birds were never part of the wild population and I do not believe there should be a limit on how many a falconer can have in his/her possession.
(22) Eliminate the inspection provision
I support the following comments by Matthew Gould of CO regarding facility inspections.
?Proposed section 21.29(c)(9) subjects ?falconry bird(s), facilities, equipment, and records? to an unqualified right of inspection (referred to below as ?post-initial? inspection) by government officers at any ?reasonable? hour. The provision completely circumvents the protections of the United States Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure. But even outside of Constitutional considerations, a greater abuse of the citizenry by government is hard to imagine. This entire provision should therefore be eliminated along with the related provisions of section 21.29(c)(2)(iii).
This provision assumes that falconers commonly violate the law. Yet substantial evidence already in the hands of the service paints quite the opposite picture. Over a year ago, roughly 50 falconers in Colorado were subjected to intrusive investigations into their falconry activities. Intrusions into homes were predicated upon this provision. Yet despite this costly investigation that involved state and federal officers from multiple states, to date not a single citation has been issued to the knowledge of this commenter.
Other examples of egregious conduct justified by this provision and the mentality behind it can also be provided. In one case, a state wildlife officer with a known bias against falconers in cooperation with a federal officer coerced a falconer into taking a day off work and driving over six hours to show the location of a nest from which an eyas had been taken the previous summer despite the fact that the agencies involved had already been given the GPS coordinates of the nest in question. In a related case, this commenter was investigated for taking an eyas despite the fact that instructions were obtained in advance from the state agency and were followed.
An initial inspection must be conducted pursuant to proposed section 21.29(c)(1), and this initial inspection is fully sufficient to confirm the competence of an individual in the area of facilities maintenance. To gain access to a falconer?s facilities, equipment, and birds subsequent to the initial inspection, government officers should be required to obtain proper warrants or citations from proper courts or law enforcement authorities. Otherwise, abuses of the kind described above will continue and the black eye given the Service by events in Colorado will grow ever more severe.
If the inspection provision is not eliminated, require an appointment
In the event some provision for post-initial inspection is imposed, the government officials wishing to conduct the inspection should be required to call in advance and set up an appointment within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days.
If an unannounced inspection is imposed, allow the falconer to reschedule
In the event some provision for unannounced post-initial inspection is imposed, the falconer should be given the option of specifying an alternative time within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days if the inspection interferes with the falconer?s previously planned personal activities.?
CLOSING:
I would like to thank Mr. Millsap and Dr. Allen and the many members of the Service staff who doubtless worked hard to produce these proposed changes. I very much appreciate the more liberal nature of the proposed regulations in whole.
Sincerely,
Eric Edwards
1150 Lake Elbert Dr SE
Winter Haven, FL 33880
(863) 221-9401
Eric.Edwards@verizon.net
sorry its so long i've just cut and paste it! mods if u wanna delete it i wont be to upset!!! :cry:
I?ve mentioned several times over the past few months that I would post my comments when they were completed. Please feel free to forward this along to other falconers that may be interested.
The deadline for comments is May 10th, I urge every falconer to send comments as soon as possible. And George Allen has mentioned that falconers can send additions to their comments so if you have already sent yours but would like to comment on another issue, it is allowed.
My comments on eagle regulations are not included in this comment but will be sent as a seperate comment. In short I support the recommendations of NAFA's eagle committee. The only thing I added was that I requested that they eliminate the requirment for a falconer to submit letters to get an eagle permit. I feel being a master falconer is sufficient experience to get an eagle permit.
Eric Edwards
DATE: 21 February 2005
TO: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, and Dr. George T. Allen, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1610.
REGARDING: RIN number 1018-AG11 (Proposed changes in the regulations governing the practice of falconry in the United States)
FROM: Eric Edwards, 1150 Lake Elbert Dr SE, Winter Haven, FL 33880; (863) 221-9401; Eric.Edwards@verizon.net
OVERVIEW:
I am writing in response to the Service's proposed changes to the Federal falconry regulations. I am a licensed US falconer with twelve years experience. I would first like to thank the service for their thoughtful consideration of these issues. It?s obvious that a lot of work went into this proposal and the needs of falconers were taken into consideration.
Comments:
I?ve given serious consideration to all of the following issues and they are all important but the first four are very important to me and I would consider them a priority.
(1) Protection from accidental take of protected migratory birds
I would like to see the addition of a provision to protect a falconer should his/her bird accidentally take a protected migratory bird. No matter how hard a falconer tries to focus his/her bird?s attention to the falconer?s intended quarry occasionally a falconer?s bird is bound to kill unintentional prey. Nearly all of this prey is the natural diet of the raptor and the bird doesn?t always understand that it?s illegal for him to chase this prey while on the falconer?s permit.
A falconer walking a field in search of pheasants for a falcon high overhead is apt to unintentionally flush a protected migratory bird and it would be impossible for the falconer to prevent his/her bird from giving chase to this natural prey item.
Many states have seen the necessity and passed ?let-it-lay? laws to protect falconers when their birds catch game species such as rabbits, squirrels, etc. when out of season. But without provisions from the USFWS similar laws cannot include migratory birds.
I propose the following language be added:
?Should a raptor accidentally take any species of protected migratory bird, during the course of permitted falconry activity, the falconer may not retain or possess the quarry, but the raptor may feed upon the quarry before leaving the site of the kill.?
(2) Allowing falconers to trap for one another
In regard to trapping, I was very pleased with some of the clarification of acceptable chain of custody when taking a bird from a nest and I support being able to temporarily keep a falconry bird while trying to trap another. But I also think it should be permissible to trap a bird and give it to another falconer within five days (or the allowed reporting timeframe) and it not count against the take limit of the falconer that trapped the bird.
?(vii) If you are not present at the immediate location where the bird is taken from the wild, the person who removes the bird from the wild must have a permit to do so, and must report take of the bird by entering the required information in the electronic database at http://permits.fws.gov/186A within 5 days of the capture of the bird. If that person then transfers the bird to you, you must both file 3?186A forms reporting the transaction within 5 days of the transfer. The bird will count as one of the two birds the person who took it from the wild is allowed to capture in any calendar year. The bird will not count as a bird you took from the wild. The person who takes the bird from the wild must report the take even if he or she promptly transfers the bird to another falconry permittee.?
I think if it is legal for a bird to be taken and given to another falconer who is ten feet away, why not ten miles away? Why any limit on distance, provided each bird is properly accounted for? If the bird is taken legally by a licensed falconer, and its possession is reported within 5 days, it should make no difference which licensed falconer first brought the bird into possession. In short, I think a falconer should be able to take a bird out of the wild for another falconer. If a chain of custody needs to be established, then I propose the addition of a ?taken by? field on the 3-186a form.
I would like to suggest the following change:
?"If you are not present at the immediate location where the bird is taken from the wild, the person who removes the bird from the wild must have a permit to do so, and YOU must report take of the bird by entering the required information in the electronic database at http://permits.fws.gov/186a within 5 days of the capture of the bird. (eliminate part about transfer) The bird will count as one of the two birds YOU are allowed to capture in any calendar year. ?
I agree with the spirit of this law; in principle I think falconers need to be able to trap their own birds but it?s not always necessary and I?d like to provide a few examples of that.
On the east coast there are several falconers who trap and fly merlins each year. We are limited to trapping during a very short window of opportunity, the annual fall migration. Merlins only pass through for a few weeks each year. We are all very experienced at merlin trapping and flying; it?s not a matter of lacking the ability.
To increase our chances of obtaining our one or two birds for the year we often separate and set up multiple trapping stations along the coast or even across the intra-coastal waterway. There may only be three of us out trapping but it doesn?t make much sense to all man the same trapping station. Under the proposed regs it would require a lot of paperwork shuffling to pass birds between us. I believe it?s unnecessary paperwork. If the bird is taken by someone who?s permitted to do so and is put on a permit within the allowed time, it shouldn?t matter who took it and who ended up with it.
Another example is when a group of falconers travel a great distance to obtain a species not found in their area. Let?s say three falconers from Florida travel to Kansas to trap prairie falcons for five days, all very experienced falconers and experienced prairie falcon trappers.
Prairies are typically trapped by driving around until one is spotted then the falconer attempts to set up a trap. It would be far more efficient if these three falconers split up and searched independently for birds. But under the proposed regs if one of these falconers had a more productive day and caught three birds a lot of paperwork would be required to transfer them to the others in his group, and in fact he wouldn?t even be able to keep all three birds, one would have to be released due to the fact that he can only take two birds out of the wild per year.
Last example: A falconer of 30 years loses his bird two days before the end of his state?s trapping season. He decides to get a red tailed hawk to finish out the season. Under the proposed regulations he would not be able to get his falconry friends to help him get a bird to finish out his season. He would have a much better chance if a handful of falconers pitched in to assist him in locating and trapping a bird.
This is also something that falconers have always done. Most interpreted the current regs to allow this, perhaps incorrectly. But why should distance matter? If the bird is legally taken and put on a permit within the allowed time, a lot of paperwork shuffling should not be necessary.
(3) Another person caring for my bird
?(6) May another person care for my falconry birds for me? Yes, another person who can legally possess raptors can care for a raptor or raptors for you for up to 45 consecutive calendar days. The other person must have a signed and dated statement from you authorizing the temporary possession, plus a copy of FWS form 3-186A that shows that you are the possessor of the bird. The statement must include information about the time period for which he or she will keep the bird(s), and about what he or she is allowed to do with the bird or birds (including exercising them for falconry, which may be done if the other person has a falconry permit at the appropriate level). The bird(s) will remain on your falconry permit. If the person who temporarily holds a bird or birds for you is a falconer, the bird(s) that he or she holds for you will not be counted against his or her possession limit on birds held for falconry.?
Please change the second sentence to read: ?Yes, another person who is qualified to care for raptors can care for a raptor or raptors for you for up to 45 consecutive calendar days.?
There are many people who are qualified to handle raptors who do not have permits. I worked in the zoo industry for many years and there were dozens of staff members who did shows and cared for raptors but none of these individuals held permits themselves. Yet, they are very capable of caring for a raptor. There are many people who work for rehab centers who do not have their own permits but are qualified to care for raptors.
Please add the following to this section:
?If the bird(s) will be in their approved facilities any person may care for the bird in the falconers absence, such as, but not limited to a spouse, family member, neighbor or friend.?
When a falconer goes out of town it is very common for his children or spouse to care for his bird. Most falconers? family members are very familiar with the care of falconry birds. When a bird is in its own facilities there is usually nothing more required than putting food in for the bird.
If I went out of town for the weekend and left my bird at home with my wife could I be cited for leaving the bird with an unlicensed falconer? It seems so by strict interpretation of the regulation.
(4) Bonding for falconry birds
I would like to see language added that would allow a falconer to post a bond for a falconry bird. If a falconer is found in violation of a wildlife-related offense, he should be able to pay a bond and keep his bird(s), as opposed to having them automatically confiscated; birds have died and been ruined under unsuitable care, and their confiscation before the falconer?s trial is a punitive measure tantamount to presumption of guilt. It is in the interest of the bird?s health and welfare that it remains in its known environment with its most familiar and knowledgeable caretaker.
(5) Requiring a minimum seven years experience to sponsor
In the proposal, potential sponsors are required to have, "at least 5 years experience at the general falconer level, or [be] a master falconer."
I feel a minimum of seven years experience to sponsor (2 as apprentice, at least 5 as general) is excessive and would limit the number of potential sponsors, making it more difficult for apprentices to find a suitable mentor. I feel that the current system works just fine. I do not agree with increasing the level of experience required to be a sponsor.
(6) Apprentices flying captive bred birds
I know this is a hotly debated subject, but I support apprentices flying any captive bred bird. I?ll preface that by stating that I believe the job of the USFWS is to protect the species in the wild; to make sure the birds we use can tolerate a harvest, and to base their decisions on sound biology. Captive bred birds fall beyond this scope. I believe whether or not a particular apprentice ?should? fly a captive bred bird is best decided between that apprentice and his or her sponsor, and I trust that individual falconers are capable of making that decision.
I think this change will allow for great progress in the way we introduce new falconers to the sport. A very large number of falconers fly captive bred birds and will be able to teach their apprentice?s what they actually do. Now a falconer who has flown captive bred peregrines and lives in a great area for hunting with a peregrine can teach his new apprentice the nuances of the art he specializes in, benefiting both the apprentice and the sponsor.
If an apprentice (or any class) decides to get out of the sport I see no reason to assume that it would be difficult for that apprentice (or any class) to find a home for their captive bred bird. In my twelve years of practicing the sport I?ve never known any falconer to have a bird he couldn?t find a home for. There is always a home for unwanted birds: other falconers, breeders, or educational facilities.
(7) Elimination of the Federal Falconry Permit
I support the elimination of the federal falconry permit. I feel this will streamline the permitting process and eliminate a lot of paper-shuffling involved with our current system?which is managed largely by the states, anyway.
I am also really happy to see that an online database has been created to ease the process of reporting and tracking falconry birds and permits.
(8) State non-compliance
If my state fails to comply with the regulation, or decide at some future time to discontinue its regulation of falconry, my bird is immediately jeopardized. The Service offers this language to describe its disposition options:
"...we will require that all raptors held for falconry in that State or (including captive-bred raptors) be transferred to falconers in other States, transferred to captive propagation programs, released to the wild (if that is allowed by the State and by this section), or euthanized."
If my state fails to comply with these new regulations it seems unreasonable that I would lose possession, through no fault of my own, of a bird that I have spent considerable time and money on.
I would like to see language allowing the bird to remain in the possession of the falconer through the appeals process. I would further like for all captive-bred raptors held at the time of a state?s decertification remain the legal property of the falconer.
(9) Apprentice?s possessing Harris Hawks
I support apprentice?s being able to possess either wild trapped or captive bred harris hawks. I think they should be able to purchase these birds, have them transferred to them or trap them from the wild. This is one of the most popular birds in American Falconry and an obvious bird for a beginner.
(10) Purchasing captive bred raptors
This section:
(2) What permit and inspections do I need to practice falconry? You must have a valid falconry permit from the State in which you reside or the Tribe on whose land you wish to practice falconry, to take, possess, or transport raptors for falconry, or to hunt with them. Your raptor care facilities (see paragraph (c) of this section) must pass inspection by your State or Tribe before you may possess a raptor under a falconry permit. You must have a Federal raptor propagation permit to purchase, barter, or sell, or offer to purchase, barter, or sell, captive-bred raptors for falconry?
Do I need a propagation permit to buy a captive bred raptor, or to sell one to another licensed falconer? This is not the case now and I see no reason to require a propagation permit unless someone is intending to breed raptors.
(11) Apprentice Requirements
Under the section dealing with apprentice requirements
?(i) What are the requirements and possession options for an apprentice falconer?
(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform that your State or Tribe allows you to take and possess for falconry. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
This language is confusing. Some falconers have taken this to mean that an apprentice is limited to only captive-bred harris hawks, red tails, kestrels, red shoulders and goshawks in Alaska. It is my understanding that the service is proposing that apprentices can fly all species of captive-bred birds. I think the following language would be clearer.
(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform that your State or Tribe allows. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
(12) Throughout the proposal the document refers to things that the state or tribe allows. Even in the above comment I think these references could be eliminated. It?s already been established that the State or Tribe can be more restrictive I don?t think we need constant references to this fact throughout the regulations. The comment above could simply read:
?(H) You may possess a captive-bred raptor of any species of Falconiform. Any such captive-bred bird must have been raised by its parents until it was fully capable of flight. You may not possess any bird for falconry that is imprinted on humans.?
I think it?s understood that the State must also allow it and that the State can be more restrictive than the above statement.
This language is present throughout the document and it seems that most instances could be eliminated to simplify the language.
(13) Upgrading to General
In this section:
(ii) What are the requirements and possession options for a general falconer? (A) You must be at least 18 years of age.
(B) You must have practiced falconry with your own raptor(s) at the apprentice falconer level for at least 2 years, including maintaining, flying, and hunting the raptor(s) for a total of at least 6 months each year. That practice may include capture and release of falconry birds.
In the above section, I would like to change the ?2 year? requirement to 18 months. The 2 year requirement often causes apprentices to go through three seasons as an apprentice. The new language clearly states that an apprentice must have 6 months each ?year.? The 2 year requirement is now unnecessary.
Or perhaps the regulations could require ?2 seasons? and provide a definition of a ?season? that would prevent the ?three year apprentice?.
To give an example of what I?m talking about, many law enforcement officials have literally interpreted the two year requirement and will not issue an upgrade until an apprentice has gone through 730 days as an apprentice.
If an apprentice gets his/her first permit in August they can reasonably fly their first bird for 6 months that season (Sept-Feb) and then fly another bird the following season for 6 months (Sept-Feb). However, many would be denied an upgrade until August (730 days from their first permit). They would not get their upgrade in time to take advantages of their general permit the third season. They would not then be allowed to pull an eyas from a nest in April because it has not been 730 days and they would not be able to purchase a captive-bred falcon in June or July (when they are commonly available).
There may be a better way to fix this problem but I think changing it from 2 years to 18 months would probably work.
(13) Reporting
The time frame for most of the reporting requirements in the proposal is 5 days. I would like to change all reporting time frames to a minimum of ?10 working days?.
Five days is unreasonable in many instances. If a falconer is traveling out of town and traps a new bird they will often not be home for a week (very typical vacation period). Or if a bird dies on a hawking trip in many instances a falconer will not have access to a computer until he gets back home and this could often be more than five days.
This is especially true in reference to the disposition of a bird. If a bird dies, a falconer should be given enough time to have post-mortems done to determine cause of death and many of these tests can take longer than five days. It might even take longer than five days to get an appointment to have the bird seen. Determining cause of death could be very important to the health of other birds in the falconer?s possession especially in the case of infectious disease.
(14) Facilities
In this section:
?(c) Facilities and care requirements. (1) What facilities must I have and maintain? The primary consideration for raptor ing facilities, whether indoors or outdoors, is protection from the environment, predators, domestic animals, and undue disturbance. You must have raptor housing facilities approved by your State or Tribe before you may obtain a bird for use in falconry. Your State or Tribe may require that you have both indoor and outdoor facilities. A representative of your State or tribal agency that regulates falconry, or its designee, must certify that your facilities and equipment meet the following standards. For keeping birds in either type facility, you must keep your facilities clean and must ensure the following.?
Please change the last sentence to ?For keeping birds in either type facility you must ensure the following.? I fear that requiring a facility be kept ?clean? can be over interpreted. A ?clean? house, bathroom or kitchen is far different than a ?clean? raptor facility. Even a healthy mews, one that is relatively clean, can look dirty or unkempt to the non-falconer and is open to interpretation.
In this section:
?(ii) The facility must have a suitable perch with a rough or uneven surface for each bird, at least one opening for sunlight, and an easy-to-clean and well-drained floor.?
Please change to:
?(ii) The facility must have a suitable perch for each bird, at least one opening for sunlight, and provide a healthy environment.?
I don?t like the specific reference to a ?rough? or ?uneven? perch. I feel it?s sufficient to merely require a ?suitable? perch. ?Rough? is very vague. Is stadium Astroturf ?rough?? I don?t know how it would be classified but it is a very good surface for perching.
And concrete is ?easy-to-clean? and ?well-drained? but it is not a good substrate for a facility. On the other hand, pea-gravel could bee seen as hard to clean but it?s a fantastic substrate.
In this section:
?(iii) You may house untethered raptors together if they are compatible. If they are not, each bird must be tethered or separated from others by solid partitions.?
Change to:
?(iii) You may house untethered raptors together if they are compatible.?
I feel the last sentence is unnecessary. It?s obvious that if they?re not ?compatible? they can?t be housed together. And the addition of a ?solid partition? is not always necessary. Just because two birds can see one another does not mean that it will cause them stress. Some may, but this should be handled on a case by case situation.
In this section:
?(B) If a bird you hold suffers feather damage or injury in your outdoor facility, you must modify the facility to preclude further feather damage or injury to the bird.?
This was not required or mentioned for an indoor facility but required for an outdoor facility. I would like this section removed. I would also like it removed because it is quite possible for a bird to injure itself in its facility through no fault of the facility. Even the best designed facility cannot guarantee that a bird will never injure itself.
And if not removed then reworded to eliminate the specific mention of ?feather damage?, there are many causes for a bird to break a feather and they do not all require the modification of their facility. And it would be very difficult for anyone to prove where or how a bird broke a feather. My fear is that this could be interpreted literally and if an officer saw a bird sitting in a facility and that bird had a broken feather, that was broken while pursuing quarry, the officer might request the facility be modified. Or even cite the falconer for not making modifications.
In this section:
?(4) What facilities must I have for a raptor when I am transporting it, using it for hunting, or I am away from my home with it? You must be sure that the bird has a perch with a rough or uneven surface and is protected from extreme temperatures, wind, and excessive disturbance.
If a bird you hold suffers feather damage or injury while you are transporting it, you must modify or change your transport methods immediately to preclude further feather damage or injury to the bird.?
Change to:
?(4) What facilities must I have for a raptor when I am transporting it, using it for hunting, or I am away from my home with it? You must be sure that the bird has a suitable perch and is protected from extreme temperatures, wind, and excessive disturbance.?
For the same reasons above I would like the section referring to ?feather damage? or ?injury? removed. Like children, a raptor can injure itself through no fault of the environment or their caretaker.
(15) Lowering the apprentice age to twelve years of age
I support lowering the age of apprentices to twelve. This falls in line with other hunting regulations (e.g., gun hunting, bow hunting) and seems logical to me. Incidentally, research shows that children introduced to hunting after the age of twelve are less likely to stick with it: There are simply too many distractions today, not all of them as wholesome and healthy as falconry.
Will all twelve year olds be capable of taking on falconry? I suspect not?neither are all fourteen year olds. But it should be left up to individual falconers to assess a potential apprentices? ability to take on the responsibility of falconry. That holds true at any age.
(16) Taking Raptors from the wild
?(ii) If you are an apprentice falconer, you may take only a first-year red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), or American kestrel (Falco sparverius) from the wild. If you reside in Alaska, you may take a first-year northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles)?
Please add Harris Hawks to this list for apprentices.
(17) Birds for apprentices
The list of wild birds an apprentice may possess is very limited and does not promote a good introduction to falconry in all states or situations. Allowing only red-tailed hawks, American Kestrels, red-shouldered hawks, harris hawks and goshawks for Alaska does not allow sponsors enough latitude in selecting the most appropriate bird for an apprentice.
I welcome the addition of the harris hawk and I would like to see apprentices have access to the same passage birds as general falconers. I do not feel they should be limited; starting out in falconry is difficult enough without limiting them to birds that may not be the best choice for their situation. I feel sponsors are capable of helping an apprentice make the best decision of an introductory bird.
If the research shows that falconry take has no impact on wild populations then I see no reason not to allow apprentices and sponsors more choices for the apprentice?s introduction to falconry.
(18) Conservation Education
?(8) May I use my falconry bird(s) for conservation education programs? Yes, if you are a general or master falconer, have not been convicted of a violation of tribal, State, or Federal falconry regulations in the last 5 years, and if a bird you hold for falconry, other than a golden eagle, is suitable for the purpose, you may use it in conservation education programs.?
I think it?s acceptable for apprentices to do these programs as well. I think we need all the conservation education we can get.
And I would like to see Golden Eagles allowed also, seeing raptors up close is a powerful experience and goes a long way to helping the species in the wild. I find conservation education very important. Rehabilitation centers, zoos and several non-profit organizations use golden and bald eagles for conservation education. I?ve even seen bald eagles flown in front of crowds for the start of baseball games and NASCAR races, I fail to see how a falconer using a golden for a talk to a boy scout group should not be allowed.
(19) Making movies
?(B) You may not use falconry birds to make movies, commercials, or in other such commercial ventures.?
I would like to see language added that makes it permissible for falconers to make ?falconry movies? or videos. Movies on the how-to aspects of falconry are very beneficial to the falconry community. And hunting videos are commonly produced now and should continue to be allowed.
(20) Feathers
?(ii) You must burn, bury, or otherwise destroy feathers that are not suitable for imping unless they are from a golden eagle.?
Must I collect every feather my bird leaves on the floor of his mew and burn, bury or destroy them? Am I allowed to just leave them there and let nature take its course? Am I allowed to throw them away?
I?m not sure of the best way to deal with this situation but when my birds are in the house the majority of his feathers are merely thrown away, after being vacuumed off the floor. Can I be cited for having body feathers on the floor of my mew? How much time do I have from the time the bird drops a feather until it?s burned, buried or destroyed? I find this a very difficult situation that could possibly be interpreted to strictly and lead to unnecessary citations.
(21) Masters possessing five bird
I support master falconers being able to possess five birds but I oppose the limit that only three of the five may be wild-caught. There have already been limits placed on the number of birds a falconer can take out of the wild per year. The number of birds a falconer has in his possession has no effect on the wild population and should not be limited.
Regarding Captive bred birds, these birds were never part of the wild population and I do not believe there should be a limit on how many a falconer can have in his/her possession.
(22) Eliminate the inspection provision
I support the following comments by Matthew Gould of CO regarding facility inspections.
?Proposed section 21.29(c)(9) subjects ?falconry bird(s), facilities, equipment, and records? to an unqualified right of inspection (referred to below as ?post-initial? inspection) by government officers at any ?reasonable? hour. The provision completely circumvents the protections of the United States Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure. But even outside of Constitutional considerations, a greater abuse of the citizenry by government is hard to imagine. This entire provision should therefore be eliminated along with the related provisions of section 21.29(c)(2)(iii).
This provision assumes that falconers commonly violate the law. Yet substantial evidence already in the hands of the service paints quite the opposite picture. Over a year ago, roughly 50 falconers in Colorado were subjected to intrusive investigations into their falconry activities. Intrusions into homes were predicated upon this provision. Yet despite this costly investigation that involved state and federal officers from multiple states, to date not a single citation has been issued to the knowledge of this commenter.
Other examples of egregious conduct justified by this provision and the mentality behind it can also be provided. In one case, a state wildlife officer with a known bias against falconers in cooperation with a federal officer coerced a falconer into taking a day off work and driving over six hours to show the location of a nest from which an eyas had been taken the previous summer despite the fact that the agencies involved had already been given the GPS coordinates of the nest in question. In a related case, this commenter was investigated for taking an eyas despite the fact that instructions were obtained in advance from the state agency and were followed.
An initial inspection must be conducted pursuant to proposed section 21.29(c)(1), and this initial inspection is fully sufficient to confirm the competence of an individual in the area of facilities maintenance. To gain access to a falconer?s facilities, equipment, and birds subsequent to the initial inspection, government officers should be required to obtain proper warrants or citations from proper courts or law enforcement authorities. Otherwise, abuses of the kind described above will continue and the black eye given the Service by events in Colorado will grow ever more severe.
If the inspection provision is not eliminated, require an appointment
In the event some provision for post-initial inspection is imposed, the government officials wishing to conduct the inspection should be required to call in advance and set up an appointment within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days.
If an unannounced inspection is imposed, allow the falconer to reschedule
In the event some provision for unannounced post-initial inspection is imposed, the falconer should be given the option of specifying an alternative time within a reasonable period not to exceed 30 days if the inspection interferes with the falconer?s previously planned personal activities.?
CLOSING:
I would like to thank Mr. Millsap and Dr. Allen and the many members of the Service staff who doubtless worked hard to produce these proposed changes. I very much appreciate the more liberal nature of the proposed regulations in whole.
Sincerely,
Eric Edwards
1150 Lake Elbert Dr SE
Winter Haven, FL 33880
(863) 221-9401
Eric.Edwards@verizon.net