New proposed reg. definition change "Hybrid"

[PeteJ]

Just got an alert about this issue. There is only SIX days to respond to this one, so get after it if you have something to say about it. I haven't waded through it all yet, but I sense that maybe we should have someone look at this closely because I feel some limitation is going on here that shouldn't be!! Take a look people and discuss.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-08/html/2011-28942.htm

[goshawkr]

Just got an alert about this issue. There is only SIX days to respond to this one, so get after it if you have something to say about it. I haven't waded through it all yet, but I sense that maybe we should have someone look at this closely because I feel some limitation is going on here that shouldn't be!! Take a look people and discuss.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-11-08/html/2011-28942.htm

Thanks for the find Pete.

We actually have until Feburary 6th, 2012 to comment:



DATES: Send comments on this proposal by February 6, 2012.
Not sure whats wrong with your calander, but thats more than 6 days away on mine. :D

Here is the link to the docket on the register where we can make comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rp p=10;po=0;D=FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060 (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR; rpp=10;po=0;D=FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060)

In the short term, this is excellent news. This means that hybrids where one parent are exotic are exotic! Saker/gyrs are regulatied like sakers (ie - NOT AT ALL!!!)

I fully expect that no matter what the comments are this loophole will be closed, but it wont hurt to try.

[Ron Clarke]

This means that hybrids where one parent are exotic are exotic! Saker/gyrs are regulatied like gyrs (ie - NOT AT ALL!!!)

Hmmmm -- I read it as just the opposite. They want all hybrids of all parentages to fall under the MBTA so they can, among other things, regulate the possible release of such birds to the wild. Am I looking at it incorrectly?

[goshawkr]

Hmmmm -- I read it as just the opposite. They want all hybrids of all parentages to fall under the MBTA so they can, among other things, regulate the possible release of such birds to the wild. Am I looking at it incorrectly?

No you are reading the proposed rule correctly Ron.

I was refering to how things are now based on the current language in the general MBTA regulations.

The Service has maintained for years that one drop of MBTA protected blood means the bird is MBTA. They have always acted as if that were the case. This rule change is just trying to fix some inconcsitencies in that regard. The falconry and propagation sections clearly state that any hybrid that has one MBTA parent is still an MBTA bird, while the general provisions that the service is seeking to change state that both parent species for a hybrid must be MBTA protected to count.

I'd actually prefer they took this even further, and dropped MBTA protection on hybrids all together. They really have no justification for claiming they are MBTA birds. Its completely contrary to the intent of the MBTA. Its so far from the MBTA mission that its off the charts!

[michaelberan]

Thank you for submitting a comment on the following Proposed Rule:

Migratory Bird Permits; Definition of Hybrid Migratory Bird (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21documentDetail;D=FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060-0001)

Agency: FWS
Document ID: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060-0001


I think the core argument/comment should be that one drop of non-native/exotic blood disqualifies the offspring from protection of the MBTA

The offspring of two birds currently protected by the MBTA are neither the sire species nor the dame species but rather a completely new hybrid animal therefore disqualified from protection under the MBTA

[PeteJ]

Thanks for the find Pete.

We actually have until Feburary 6th, 2012 to comment:



Not sure whats wrong with your calander, but thats more than 6 days away on mine. :D

Here is the link to the docket on the register where we can make comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR;rp p=10;po=0;D=FWS-R9-MB-2011-0060

In the short term, this is excellent news. This means that hybrids where one parent are exotic are exotic! Saker/gyrs are regulatied like gyrs (ie - NOT AT ALL!!!)

I fully expect that no matter what the comments are this loophole will be closed, but it wont hurt to try.
Oops, sorry on the 6 day thing. I have no idea where that came from. Except for the idea that probably they cannot even determine if certain birds are hybrids anyway, they should probably just conclude that if its a hybrid it is no longer a part of the wild population anyway and therefore they shouldn't bother trying to cover it. But, they will try because they have no choice really since otherwise they might have to really train some people quite well to be able to know the difference between a pure species and hybrid individual. And if you could determine its a hybrid...sometimes figuring out what birds are in the mix is very difficult, even for people with an eye for that sort of thing. Once again its one of those things that they really will have a lot of difficulty in enforcing. I do understand that they have to make the attempt of course.

[goshawks00]

Guys , first I'll say I haven't read this up yet, but it already stirs a couple of questions...
What is their definition of hybrid?
Exotics?

If a peregrine and a prairie 'IN THE WILD bred the offspring are hybrids correct? If they are bred in captivity they are hybrids rights?


If a wild bred pergrine from say Casinni parentage on one side bred a pure bred Gyr it too is a hybrid right? Same if it was done in captivity right?
Didn't the Feds use Cassini in their re-introduction of pergrines? Shouldn't that make all pergrineoff spring in the US exotics? :eek:
Just sayin..

[goshawkr]

If a peregrine and a prairie 'IN THE WILD bred the offspring are hybrids correct? If they are bred in captivity they are hybrids rights?

Right. But here is where things are interesting. Acording to current wording in the MBTA regulations, if a peregrine and a saker produced a hybrid in the wild (or in captivity I suppose as long it was outside US controlled turf) then it would NOT be a hybrid, even if said mongrel wandered over US terrirtory. And the way I read the comments submitted by the USFWS, this non-hybrid would also NOT be protected by MBTA regulations (it would be considered an excotic, just like a pure saker would)

But that same critter, produced by a propagator WOULD be a hybrid, and would be MBTA protected.

This is the mess the USFWS currently seeks to clear up. On that point I agree with them - the defining should be consistent, because to do otherwise is to make things very messy.



If a wild bred pergrine from say Casinni parentage on one side bred a pure bred Gyr it too is a hybrid right? Same if it was done in captivity right?
Didn't the Feds use Cassini in their re-introduction of pergrines? Shouldn't that make all pergrineoff spring in the US exotics? :eek:
Just sayin..

Well, the catch here is that the MBTA stops differentiating at the species level.

Peregrine falcons are MBTA protected - all of them. Even those subspecies that dont make it to the US.