PDA

View Full Version : Montana non resident take support comments needed



falcon56
12-23-2011, 10:10 AM
Montana FWP has initiated revisions to the current falconry regs. to allow non resident take of raptors beginning spring of 2012. In a nutshell, it will allow 3 raptors of each species, excluding for the present time, nestling peregrines. A $5 application fee is required for non residents and if successful in the drawing, a $200 capture fee is put in place by the new administrative rules. The comment period ends December 30, 2011 so there is only 1 week left to submit comments either supporting or not.
Please submit TERSE comments, ie: "I am(or not) in support of the proposed non resident raptor take in Montana", or use your own words, to Bette Moe at bmoe@mt.gov. Finalization of the rule by the Commission could occur Feb. 16, 2012, with the rule going into place March 9, 2012. Thanks to all that will take the time to comment positively.

Saluqi
12-23-2011, 10:30 AM
Done.

Tanner
12-23-2011, 10:53 AM
Done.

keitht
12-23-2011, 11:11 AM
Ray:

How did the number "3" come about? It just seems like a very small number.

falcon56
12-23-2011, 12:10 PM
Keith,
We had to come up with a number that would satisfy everyone involved-
Audobon, Mt falconers, MTFWP. That's 3 goshawks, 3 gyrfalcons, 3 merlins, 3 prairies, 3 coopers hawks, 3 sharpies etc etc. Adds up to not such a small number I think. The small cadre of anti's were of course adamantly against it, but they're against everything. Audobon was initially against the proposal and conceivably could have thrown a major wrench in the works until we told them that 3 of each species is what we were looking at, they basically said that's a non issue number and were very supportive. We could have proposed 10 of each species and somebody would have cried we were hoarding and being selfish.

goshawks00
12-23-2011, 12:18 PM
Ray, I also am responding to support your new regs in Mont. Good luck!!

That said why is the take fee so high for non-residents? I think that's ridiculous. Maybe all states should charge non-residents the fee which is equal to that which is charged in their state the non resident is coming fromfrus). You can come to Mich as a non resident take for free yet if I come to your state it's $200.00? Why the disparity?

FredFogg
12-23-2011, 01:11 PM
Ray, I also am responding to support your new regs in Mont. Good luck!!

That said why is the take fee so high for non-residents? I think that's ridiculous. Maybe all states should charge non-residents the fee which is equal to that which is charged in their state the non resident is coming fromfrus). You can come to Mich as a non resident take for free yet if I come to your state it's $200.00? Why the disparity?

I can't agree more Barry! I think every state should have non-resident take and each state should charge what the state the person coming to trap from charges. It is free here in NC besides the normal stuff, hunting license, etc. I tried to get our state to put it in our regs that they would charge whatever the state the person coming to trap from but they wouldn't go for it. I think it was just too much work for them and really, we don't have much worth trapping here that most others can't get in their own state.

falcon56
12-23-2011, 03:58 PM
Where do you think the money is going come from to fund the program and administration? You actually think the MTFWP is going to use man hours pro bono? If you don't want to pay the $200 dollars, don't apply for a non resident capture permit, it's as simple as that. We suggested that a non resident had to purchase a conservation stamp as well, just like any non resident coming to MT to hunt or fish(harvest a resource), the Dept. said no. Go trap a tundra bird in Texas, the permits will set a non resident back close to $400.

BestBeagler
12-23-2011, 04:32 PM
Go trap a tundra bird in Texas, the permits will set a non resident back close to $400.

I think you missed the point. I sent in my oppinion!

falcon56
12-23-2011, 04:44 PM
What is the point I'm missing?

BestBeagler
12-23-2011, 04:53 PM
What is the point I'm missing?

See post 6 and 7

falcon56
12-23-2011, 05:16 PM
And the point is that it shouln't be so expensive? Come to Montana and buy a non resident big game license. I had nothing to do with establishing the cost, it was the MTFWP that decided on the amount. Had it been up to us(MFA) it probably would have been more, sorry if that offends some of you, but it is what it is. I'm simply the messenger relaying information that some will think is a long time coming and will apprecitate the fact that there is a high probability that they can come to Montana in 2012 and take a bird of some flavor or another. It amazes me that I have to go on the offensive here. No one is forcing anybody to apply for a permit in Montana.

BestBeagler
12-23-2011, 05:47 PM
Had it been up to us(MFA) it probably would have been more

I think this is what chaps our butts more than anything. I see nothing wrong with a state requiring a non resident to buy a small game hunting license, but if my state doesn't require you to buy an out of state hunting license to trap a bird here in MI why should I have to in MT? When will falconers get it out of their heads about birds in a state being "theirsĒ? I can understand where people can get ruffled about it but that has to with do to with their regs. State/Fed regulations can be used as a tool by authorities to divide us as a whole. Does anyone agree? That's my point. Instead of fighting each other saying these are our birds and you have to pay so and so it should be open across the board. Why hamper ourselves. We all live in the same country!

I am sorry you feel that you have to be defensive about it.

In a way, being on a forum is dangerous. We, I do anyway; use far less tact than if we were talking person to person. If we were talking in person I would have never told you that I thought you missed the point. I would have stated my opinion differently so that the point I was trying to make came through a bit more clearly so that you understood my position on the matter. We either would have agreed or disagreed, or understood each otherís position more clearly, and moved on to another topic, with no reason to be offended. Unless of course we were both being jerks and then we would proceed to flip each other off and walk away or get in a fight :). Some people really are jerks and after a bit of listening you just walk away thinking what an @$$ H*!E they were. That is not the case with you though :)

falcon56
12-23-2011, 07:13 PM
Issac etal.
What you all fail to realize is what many of us have had to deal with in the past regarding out of state falconers coming here for short hawking(or illegal trapping) vacations, having no respect for the land or landowners and leaving us with a mess to "clean up". We live here and have to deal with things on a daily basis, not just for a week or so. I understand that there are conditions, game & birds available here that people want to experience, more power to them, but as in every walk of life there are those that feel an entitlement to things and just don't see beyond the end of their noses. They are in it for themselves and be damned with everybody else. Being the centerpoint of Operation Falcon in the early 80's didn't help our attitudes much, & we still have to deal with the main actor in that fiasco. Maybe you could better understand why some of us aren't exactly celebrating when the potential is there for even more problems on another level, ie the debacle in Oregon with the wild taken peregrine last year, as to why we wanted the permit to be more costly. Long term it really didn't seem to be in our best interests to open the floodgates so to speak-we know things are going to happen and people are going to do dumb things it's a fact of falconry, but WE are the ones that feel the heat. "Our birds" has nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with it being our home. Looking at it from the outside, you may have certain preconceived suppositions as to why we feel this way, but you're probably wrong.

Montucky
12-23-2011, 07:21 PM
i think it is a good step. good for you guys for getting it done. $200 is i think about what idaho does for non-residents or close to it and they also have a cap for non-res take for various species although it is never met by demand - not even close. Mt is requiring you to essentially buy a tag...just like an non-res elk hunter. The reason for cost disparity often has to do with issues such as what raptor resources are in that state that may not be in other states (expected demand) and demand on the agency to administer the paperwork. I can buy a buck tag in several eastern states for a pitance, and the same tag would cost you 400 in many western states...thats because you are applying for a permit that is in high demand, for a populations in less density across the landscape and that resides mostly on public land - the managment of which has to rest on the resource agency not the pivate lanowner citizen. And Michigan probably doesnt execute a fee because people arent knocking the door down to trap there.

From the standpoint of legal principle, i personally think it is a little wierd that states can collect a permit fee for a migratory bird take...but it is what it is and i am sure most F&G agencies are well in the red when it comes to paying for administrative costs through permit fees.

Ron Clarke
12-23-2011, 07:37 PM
Issac etal.
What you all fail to realize is what many of us have had to deal with in the past regarding out of state falconers coming here for short hawking(or illegal trapping) vacations, having no respect for the land or landowners and leaving us with a mess to "clean up". We live here and have to deal with things on a daily basis, not just for a week or so. I understand that there are conditions, game & birds available here that people want to experience, more power to them, but as in every walk of life there are those that feel an entitlement to things and just don't see beyond the end of their noses. They are in it for themselves and be damned with everybody else. Being the centerpoint of Operation Falcon in the early 80's didn't help our attitudes much, & we still have to deal with the main actor in that fiasco. Maybe you could better understand why some of us aren't exactly celebrating when the potential is there for even more problems on another level, ie the debacle in Oregon with the wild taken peregrine last year, as to why we wanted the permit to be more costly. Long term it really didn't seem to be in our best interests to open the floodgates so to speak-we know things are going to happen and people are going to do dumb things it's a fact of falconry, but WE are the ones that feel the heat. "Our birds" has nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with it being our home. Looking at it from the outside, you may have certain preconceived suppositions as to why we feel this way, but you're probably wrong.
Very well stated, Ray. Thank you. Bottom line for the Montanans -- or any group trying to accommodate non-residents -- is they have to protect their own best interests because nobody else will. That's not a criticism of non-residents, just an acknowledgement of human nature. We're all just glorified apes with car keys in our pockets, looking to get the best deal we can find. The Montanans know best what will work in Montana. Hang in there.

keitht
12-23-2011, 07:42 PM
I think I paid $275 in Wyoming last season to take a gos, (if my memory is currently working.)

I have checked into Colorado, and it seems to be another state where out of state take is so restrictive as to be not worth the effort.

Of coarse Wyoming has no restrictions on the numbers of birds pulled. And from what I hear, very few out of staters pulled birds. So the no-limit rule has had no negative effects.

But I do understand how sometimes you have to start out small to get people to go along.

PeteJ
12-23-2011, 07:42 PM
Of course we should feel fortunate they are allow us to go to another state and trap or pull an eyas. That being said, of course the states should get over themselves and remember that these persons coming from other states are also AMERICANS. The States have always seemed to have their own sense of entitlement that is based only upon their borders and that what is inside that border is THEIRS. All the States are this way about non-resident take on some level or other. Some, with elevated attitudes of entitlement, will slap you with non-resident hunting license requirements, this stamp, that stamp, drive to the capitol to get the bird banded, get Starbucks for the wildlife personnel, etc.. Others, like NM have minimal requirements that do not even require much more than a non-res. hunting license. But we have our own limitations on the number and species of birds available for take. So none of it is perfect.
The reality of it all is, that as Americans we should be able to go anyplace in the U.S. to acquire a bird provided it is not on the individual states' endangered species list. Because you all know that on some level, each state is doing the absolute minimum they are FORCED to do by the environmental coalition of the U.S. to protect or potentially enhance such populations, when they really would rather party with the oil/gas/timber/mining industry lobbyists because they offer hookers. When was the last time you, as a falconer, offered booze and hooker to your state wildlife head honcho? I rest my case...;-)
I will send in comments of support. We get what we can, where we can. I applaud Montana falconer's efforts because they really didn't have to get this benefit for the rest of us.

Tanner
12-23-2011, 07:52 PM
I applaud the MT falconers for getting this changed - it was time, so thanks!

One thing that bothers me, that is true regardess of state, is this idea: "we only asked for 3 of each species so as not to piss off Audobon". I understand the sentiment completely and trust that those on the ground in MT know best with regard to the timing/politics there. But the fact is that take allocations should be based on biological evidence, not what Audobon "feels" is reasonable. I don't know what the best strategy for dealing with that pressure is but it's going to increase with time.

wyodjm
12-23-2011, 08:02 PM
Very well stated, Ray. Thank you. Bottom line for the Montanans -- or any group trying to accommodate non-residents -- is they have to protect their own best interests because nobody else will. That's not a criticism of non-residents, just an acknowledgement of human nature. We're all just glorified apes with car keys in our pockets, looking to get the best deal we can find. The Montanans know best what will work in Montana. Hang in there.

This dialog is beneficial. Wyoming charges $242 for a nonresident capture fee. All license fees are determined and established by our Legislature, not the Game and Fish Dept. Also, if one type of hunting or fishing license fee goes up, all licenses go up proportionally across the board.

Interestingly, the USFWS has decided to keep managing the take of eagles for falconry purposes, not the state. We are to take on the administration of all other falconry regulations as of January 2012.

Iíd be interested in knowing peoplesí opinions on the USFWS holding a national lottery on just six eagles to be taken in Wyoming. Should the feds consider set aside permits for residents? Similar to the way peregrine take is administered? People will still be required to purchase a non-resident take permit if they draw one of the six permits.

Iím not sure I agree with the feds holding a national lottery on who can come into Wyoming and take an eagle with no input from the state. They are planning to do just that again in 2012. Like they did in 2011. I donít know if I like the idea of the possibility of nonresidents being able to draw a permit and residents not being able to.

Watch and see how this evolves folks. If the USFWS is beginning to say who can come into Wyoming and take a non- threatened, non-endangered species like an eagle, whatís to stop them from doing the same across the board with other high profile species like, gyrs, goshawks, or prairies, or Harrisí hawks in all states?

Iím a Wyoming resident. I think the precedent has been set on a certain number of set aside permits for other species. The precedent has also been set in other states. If residents donít want (use) the resident quota of take permits, then those unused permits get thrown into the general nonresident pool. But, to not consider residents at all, well I have a bit of heartburn over that.

I sure hope to hear peoples' opinions on this. This could turn into a real pickle down the road. Wouldn't Wyoming also know best what what would work in Wyoming? Remember, we've had nonresident take probably since there have been written regulations governing falconry in the U.S.

Best,

PeteJ
12-23-2011, 08:51 PM
I agree Dan, that's just plan goofy. On one hand they allow the states to deal with their own populations of various species, but then the Feds overstep that with Golden Eagles? I don't understand that at all. You've got to think, for instance, that there are more Golden Eagles in the wild in U.S. than there are Harris' hawks in the wild right? Why don't have they have a lottery for Harris' hawks then? Too strange.

goshawks00
12-23-2011, 09:13 PM
But the fact is that take allocations should be based on biological evidence, not what Audobon "feels" is reasonable. I don't know what the best strategy for dealing with that pressure is but it's going to increase with time.

Yea that's it Tanner... biological evidence. Oh I am sure Mont. is spending thousands upon thousands of falconers dollars to provide that evidence ... I mean it's their birds we're talking about, they must have all the evidence they need.

. No wait, I see now Montana is demanding money from nonresidents to help pay for these huge man hour management tasks, I mean really it is for all our good right?

I am sure at (you fill in the blank) $ per hour it must surely take 10 or 20 or maybe 30 hours to do all that paperwork for a single non resident permit. Oh yea GOD bless all them Montana falconers for looking out for us.

Montucky
12-23-2011, 09:16 PM
This dialog is beneficial. Wyoming charges $242 for a nonresident capture fee. All license fees are determined and established by our Legislature, not the Game and Fish Dept. Also, if one type of hunting or fishing license fee goes up, all licenses go up proportionally across the board.

Interestingly, the USFWS has decided to keep managing the take of eagles for falconry purposes, not the state. We are to take on the administration of all other falconry regulations as of January 2012.

Iíd be interested in knowing peoplesí opinions on the USFWS holding a national lottery on just six eagles to be taken in Wyoming. Should the feds consider set aside permits for residents? Similar to the way peregrine take is administered? People will still be required to purchase a non-resident take permit if they draw one of the six permits.

Iím not sure I agree with the feds holding a national lottery on who can come into Wyoming and take an eagle with no input from the state. They are planning to do just that again in 2012. Like they did in 2011. I donít know if I like the idea of the possibility of nonresidents being able to draw a permit and residents not being able to.

Watch and see how this evolves folks. If the USFWS is beginning to say who can come into Wyoming and take a non- threatened, non-endangered species like an eagle, whatís to stop them from doing the same across the board with other high profile species like, gyrs, goshawks, or prairies, or Harrisí hawks in all states?

Iím a Wyoming resident. I think the precedent has been set on a certain number of set aside permits for other species. The precedent has also been set in other states. If residents donít want (use) the resident quota of take permits, then those unused permits get thrown into the general nonresident pool. But, to not consider residents at all, well I have a bit of heartburn over that.

I sure hope to hear peoples' opinions on this. This could turn into a real pickle down the road. Wouldn't Wyoming also know best what what would work in Wyoming? Remember, we've had nonresident take probably since there have been written regulations governing falconry in the U.S.

Best,

Dan, the feds maintain juristiction over all migratory birds not the states. The states operate as trust partners and advise the feds on local and region management decisions, but the feds have the final say. as for eagles there is a Bald/Golden Eagle Act...so it is pretty clear why eagles have special status and why the USFWS maintains more oversight than other species. we can argue the details of how that status pertains to falconry and that is fine, but there is a legitimate background behind why management is the way it is. If we just suspended the falconry issue for a second and delve into the history of eagle exploitation and conservation one would come out of it with a sense that the regulations pertaining to eagles had a real historical context and conservation meaning and were beneficial to populations and continue to be. As for falconry i would agree that there are some big holes in the issue, but i still dont think that liberalizing eagle take to the same extent as other raptors is an automatically great idea.

your issue wiht eagle take in WY makes sense in principle, but in practice you just happen to live in the state that has the most robust population of golden eagles...so it makes sense from an objective standpoint to take birds out of a less imperiled population, but to do so in an equitable way to all interested parties nationwide....hopefully they will inch the take limit up a little but thats another story and another issue.

wyodjm
12-23-2011, 09:43 PM
your issue wiht eagle take in WY makes sense in principle, but in practice you just happen to live in the state that has the most robust population of golden eagles...so it makes sense from an objective standpoint to take birds out of a less imperiled population, but to do so in an equitable way to all interested parties nationwide....hopefully they will inch the take limit up a little but thats another story and another issue.

Hi John:

I agree with you....to a point. But it is a slippery road. I could make the same argument with all of the passage gyrs wintering in Montana. I don't think it is that great of an idea to look at another state and make concessions or exceptions.

Less imperiled population? As in threatened or endangered? You mean less imperiled that way? When has the Golden Eagle ever been threatened or endangered federally in any region of the U.S? There are probably far less Gyrs wintering in the lower 48 states than Golden Eagles at this moment. Would gyrs be more ďimperiled"? At this moment, the Golden Eagle is considered common under federal law. So are Peregrines.

I am fully aware of the intricate details and history behind the Eagle Act, both when the Golden Eagle was added to the Bald Eagle Act in 1962 and the 1972 amendment to the Act that allowed the take of Golden Eagles for falconry in depredation areas. It was a provision that was added to the Act as an alternative to killing eagles. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is simply referred to now as the Eagle Act.

Iíd be happy to debate anything about the Eagle Act or its history if you would like. Anything at all. However, I still believe Wyoming is taking it in the shorts over this. Contrary to what you may believe, it doesnít have to be this way. There is nothing in the Eagle Act that requires the USFWS to administer the Act or the take of eagles for falconry in this manner. They are simply doing it because they can. They do have the authority. I donít argue that. But it doesnít mean they have to. Wyoming could administer the program, even with the six-eagle quota. My point is they arenít being allowed to. And residents may not be considered in the national lottery. That has national implications, if you catch my drift.

David
12-23-2011, 11:33 PM
Fred,

Absolutely. For years falconers from all over the country have come to KY to pull sharpies. The cost is a nonresident hunting lisc; about $100. We are looking at this very thing, charging out-of-state falconers the same cost as the state they reside in. We are also pushing for reciprocity between states. If your state allows nonresidents great, if not sorry.

Unfortunally, like society, falconers look at what best for themselves verses the sport in general. I am sure we all have small issues with out-of-state falconers from time to time. Maybe, if we did a better job supporting each other the issues would be minimized. An example would be Texas support for nonresidents trapping peregrines. While I disagree with the cost I applaud the help they provide.

David


I can't agree more Barry! I think every state should have non-resident take and each state should charge what the state the person coming to trap from charges.

falcon56
12-24-2011, 09:58 AM
Yea that's it Tanner... biological evidence. Oh I am sure Mont. is spending thousands upon thousands of falconers dollars to provide that evidence ... I mean it's their birds we're talking about, they must have all the evidence they need.

. No wait, I see now Montana is demanding money from nonresidents to help pay for these huge man hour management tasks, I mean really it is for all our good right?

I am sure at (you fill in the blank) $ per hour it must surely take 10 or 20 or maybe 30 hours to do all that paperwork for a single non resident permit. Oh yea GOD bless all them Montana falconers for looking out for us.

Barry,
I really don't understand the vitriol coming from you on this. If you don't have any interest in a non res. capture permit here, then don't comment on the proposal or just appreciate it for what it is, but to be so sarcastically angry about it is a waste of your emotion and everyones time having to read it here. No one is "demanding" money from anyone, it's a choice to either take advantage of a potential opportunity or not, very simple. None of the money goes in my pocket or any other Montana falconers pocket, it goes into the coffers of the State of Montana, perhaps to be allocated towards habitat improvemnet, or any of the other various programs that are benefitting the people that enjoy recreating in the outdoors. I have no idea what the MTFWP has in mind for the money, don't care, just as I don't care what they do with my $150 falconry permit fees, it's the cost of doing what I enjoy doing. If $200 is too onerus a load for someone to come here and take an eyass merlin, goshawk or trap a passage gyr, then they need to shop somewhere else.

falcon56
12-24-2011, 10:07 AM
I applaud the MT falconers for getting this changed - it was time, so thanks!

One thing that bothers me, that is true regardess of state, is this idea: "we only asked for 3 of each species so as not to piss off Audobon". I understand the sentiment completely and trust that those on the ground in MT know best with regard to the timing/politics there. But the fact is that take allocations should be based on biological evidence, not what Audobon "feels" is reasonable. I don't know what the best strategy for dealing with that pressure is but it's going to increase with time.

Your comment regarding Audobon is not a quote of mine- don't know where that came from. The 3 birds were never intended toward placating Audobon, they were never included in the process, it just so happens that up to point that they found out the number being proposed, they were adamantly opposed to the idea of non res. take and it would have been a major battle for us. We DID NOT check with Audobon and haggle numbers with them, they were informed as was the public, after the number was established in discussions between MFA and the MTFWP and put into draft form.

PeteJ
12-24-2011, 10:28 AM
Your comment in post #5 makes it sound like that, since 3 was okay, but if you'd asked for 10 then they would claim you were being selfish. That's the part Tanner was referencing is all. Again, as usual, biological data be damned. Let 'em schmooze, let 'em schmooze, let 'em schmooze.

Saluqi
12-24-2011, 10:54 AM
Falconers have complained about Montana not having a non-resident take for years, and now it does. Now falconers are complaining that Montana isn't allowing enough birds for non-residents to take, and that it costs too much. Boy, falconers sure can be whiners!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

falcon56
12-24-2011, 11:21 AM
Falconers have complained about Montana not having a non-resident take for years, and now it does. Now falconers are complaining that Montana isn't allowing enough birds for non-residents to take, and that it costs too much. Boy, falconers sure can be whiners!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Paul,
You hit the nail on the head, thank you so much. I still can't beleive that I've had to spend so much time defending something that people have been harping on us for for years. Will they ever be satisfied?

Lowachi
12-24-2011, 11:29 AM
falconers sure can be whiners!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

a new years resolution to aspire to, ;).....

AND DEFINITELY, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE!!!!!!

wyodjm
12-24-2011, 02:27 PM
Forgive me for going down a bit of a rabbit trail with the eagle take drama. It wasnít my intention to diverge so much.

This is a thread on Montana's nonresident take. Hats off to Montana.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Lowachi
12-24-2011, 02:37 PM
Msg sent to MTFWP.thumbsupp

falcon56
12-24-2011, 02:48 PM
Your comment in post #5 makes it sound like that, since 3 was okay, but if you'd asked for 10 then they would claim you were being selfish. That's the part Tanner was referencing is all. Again, as usual, biological data be damned. Let 'em schmooze, let 'em schmooze, let 'em schmooze.

I meant that falconers would have whined that 10 was too few.

Montucky
12-24-2011, 02:53 PM
i sent my email of support....

i am stoked...i just had to move out of montana for family reasons so am glad i could potentially return to my trapping ridge there.

goshawks00
12-24-2011, 03:58 PM
Ray, First of all I do applaud those that are willing to 'as you said' think of others instead of just them selves. We each of us need to strive with every opportunity to do so for each other.

If my whining, or sarcasm, or your preceived notion that I am angry over this all , bothers you, then you should use that same priveledge we all are afforded on this site, which is not to try and silence others opinions but rather, not read it. Mine is not a personal attack to you please don't take it that way. I disagree with what is done, please allow me the space to say so.
It's kind of ackward when states like Montana and for that matter Alaska, say we don't understand how 'our' falconry works. I think many do see exactly what it's like...

BTW please explain what you meant we you said, who are the we and us in this

""as to why we wanted the permit to be more costly. Long term it really didn't seem to be in our best interests to open the floodgates so to speak"

Me personaly I am all for every state, and more specifically every falconer in every state, do all they can to enable evey falconer, no matter the state, to be able to use the natural resouces to it's fullest ability.
No exorbinant fees, perpetrated by the state at the urging of it's falconers. I hope that is really the message you are getting from me.
BTW I have no interest to come to Montana to take a bird, to far and to much. Anyway, I already have a fine goshawk from Montanatoungeout

Now then I hope you all have a blessed Christmas season and you birds rest with full crops.

wyodjm
12-24-2011, 03:58 PM
Just e-mailed my comments in support of non-resident take in Montana also.

Thanks Ray for the heads up and the opportunity to comment.

FredFogg
12-24-2011, 10:28 PM
Issac etal.
What you all fail to realize is what many of us have had to deal with in the past regarding out of state falconers coming here for short hawking(or illegal trapping) vacations, having no respect for the land or landowners and leaving us with a mess to "clean up".

Ray, why do falconers keep bringing up the past when it doesn't relate to what is going on now? If you had falconers coming there and doing illegal trapping and messing up property in hawking vacations, that should have been dealt with through law enforcement then. Don't penalize the next guy because of what someone did in the past. And exactly how many times did this happen and how many people, I would love to see the actual numbers?

And don't give me that crap about who is going to pay for all of this? What is it, a one page document? State government is rediculous! Plain and simple! We have to get an import permit to bring in a raptor from out of state here in NC, it is a one page report with our name and information on it, the type of bird we are bringing in and from where and a signature by them. Duh, 3 lines, but yet they tell us on the phone it will take 6-8 weeks to process it. Come on, give me a break. The same with out of state take. Kansas doesn't charge anything, mails a packet to the applicant with their falconry regulations and a mail back card to send them with information about what was trapped and that is it. No charge, nothing! Like most other states, you do have to buy an out state hunting license.

And all of these folks that keep comparing what we do in falconry to big game hunting, give me a break, everybody knows big game hunting is a huge money making thing for a lot of states. Non-resident falconry take will never be a big dollar profit for any state. I would love to come to Montana and trap a goshawk, probably never will due to how far away it is, but add the fee they are charging and nope, not even going to think about it. Same goes for TX. I don't mind spending $1000 on vehicle, gas, hotel and a good time and am more than happy to spend money in that state to support them, but I am not dropping a chunk of change for a one page document that takes them 10 minutes to fill out. Hell, might as well hire a lawyer if you want to pay those prices! LOL toungeout :D

FredFogg
12-24-2011, 10:38 PM
Falconers have complained about Montana not having a non-resident take for years, and now it does. Now falconers are complaining that Montana isn't allowing enough birds for non-residents to take, and that it costs too much. Boy, falconers sure can be whiners!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Paul, I have never in my entire life complained about Montana not having non-resident take and now that they will have non-resident take, I won't complain about how many? I think it is great they got non-resdient take, all states should have it.

But I will complain about a $200 fee for one sheet of paper. It doesn't take $200 to type out one sheet of paper. Hell, I tell you what, I will type them out for all non-resident take in Montana and only charge the state $100 per page. LOL toungeout :D

These crazy fees being charged not only for falconry but in every apect of our lives is what is helping to bring this country down. People need to take a stand!

Oh yeah, forgot to add, I emailed in my support for non-resident take in Montana. I may not agree with the fee but I will support every state that implements it because we all should have access to all the birds in the U.S., after all, they are ours.

Tanner
12-25-2011, 10:28 AM
Thanks for the clarification Ray. I guess that's not the way I understood this statement at first pass:


Keith,
We had to come up with a number that would satisfy everyone involved-
Audobon, Mt falconers, MTFWP.

I was mostly trying to initiate discussion about how falconry organizations should plan on dealing with the influence of Audobon in the future.

Again, thanks to the Montana falconers for working to get the take in place.

joekoz
12-25-2011, 11:29 AM
Montana FWP has initiated revisions to the current falconry regs. to allow non resident take of raptors beginning spring of 2012. In a nutshell, it will allow 3 raptors of each species, excluding for the present time, nestling peregrines. A $5 application fee is required for non residents and if successful in the drawing, a $200 capture fee is put in place by the new administrative rules. The comment period ends December 30, 2011 so there is only 1 week left to submit comments either supporting or not.
Please submit TERSE comments, ie: "I am(or not) in support of the proposed non resident raptor take in Montana", or use your own words, to Bette Moe at bmoe@mt.gov. Finalization of the rule by the Commission could occur Feb. 16, 2012, with the rule going into place March 9, 2012. Thanks to all that will take the time to comment positively.

Personally, I was very impressed with the fact that Ray took the initiative to alert all of us to the opportunity to comment.

After following and reading comments posted on this thread, I'm betting that at least for the forseeable future we won't be seeing anyone else stepping up and posting this type of helpful jesture/information any time soon.

Lowachi
12-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Personally, I was very impressed with the fact that Ray took the initiative to alert all of us to the opportunity to comment.

After following and reading comments posted on this thread, I'm betting that at least for the forseeable future we won't be seeing anyone else stepping up and posting this type of helpful jesture/information any time soon.

does seem ta happen all too frequently. Thanks Ray

dliepe
12-25-2011, 12:40 PM
Got mine in. Good for Montana. Better for those who live in adjacent states. Those who live out there are really the only ones who will beneift from the actual physical take in MT. The rest of us are just commenting to help those individuals, and for Idealogical reasons.
The passage gyr is probably the biggest prize here, but let's face it, who in their right mind from the midwest or east would drive to montana (30 plus hours for me, I did it) and trap a gyr only to have it die of Asper a short time later. You have a better chance of winning the mega-million lottery than finding and successfully trapping a gyr anyway.
The other two prized species, prairie and peregrine, are readilly available now in many other states. Why go to Mt for these. Goshawks......now thats something different. Don't know what madness occupies the minds of austringers.....crazyy.....they might think its worth the trip.confusedd
All in all a great thing. Take is the right of every American.
As far as Non-residents ruining Mt. that's a whole other thread. You can thank big game, waterfowl and to a lesser extent upland gunners for that. They've been misbehavin out there for decades. What's really sad though, is that fellow falconers out there pass judgment on falconers from other states, and simply lump us in with the scum. Not fair.....Not nice.
Judgmental falconers are the runiation of the sport. Why I hawk alone for the most part. We need to work on that
Merry Christmas Everybody.

Ron Clarke
12-25-2011, 06:22 PM
But I will complain about a $200 fee for one sheet of paper. It doesn't take $200 to type out one sheet of paper.



Just a WAG on my part, but I'll bet the fee has little or nothing to do with anticipated administrative costs.

Montana brings in a lot of money every year selling licenses and tags to big game hunters, both resident and non-resident. The more unusual permits probably cost more, e.g., a bighorn sheep tag likely commands a higher price than one for a mule deer. By that same token, if Montana were to charge only a nominal fee for one of a mere handful of non-resident permits to take raptors, or give them away for free, before long the big game hunters -- who are better organized and equipped with legal and political firepower falconers can only dream of -- would be knocking at MT F&G's door with a strong case for reducing or eliminating their fees, too: "You can justify charging a pittance for one of only three permits for a given species, you have to treat us the same way." Every state wildlife agency is concerned about declining license sales these days. Any potential threat to the very foundation of a big piece of revenue for a state wildlife agency is going to be a tough sell.

There are always considerations and repercussions far beyond the tiny world of falconry. We'd all do well to step outside of our limited perspective from time to time and try to see the world from a bigger picture point of view. In this case, Montanans surely know best what will work in their particular jurisdiction. We ought to give them the room and the respect to do whatever they can, and not hold it against them if they try to accommodate others without diminishing any part of the present situation they now enjoy.

FredFogg
12-25-2011, 06:35 PM
We'd all do well to step outside of our limited perspective from time to time and try to see the world from a bigger picture point of view. In this case, Montanans surely know best what will work in their particular jurisdiction. We ought to give them the room and the respect to do whatever they can, and not hold it against them if they try to accommodate others without diminishing any part of the present situation they now enjoy.

Yeah, just let any state do whatever they want, that's ok because its their state. Well, it impacts other states when they go to do their regulations so NO, I won't sit around and not voice my opinion about a crazy fee for something that keeps getting compared to big game hunting, not the same, never will be, so stop comparing them. When it ain't right, it ain't right! Just sugar coating it all the different ways you want to doesn't malke to right. Period!

Montucky
12-25-2011, 07:21 PM
Yeah, just let any state do whatever they want, that's ok because its their state. Well, it impacts other states when they go to do their regulations so NO, I won't sit around and not voice my opinion about a crazy fee for something that keeps getting compared to big game hunting, not the same, never will be, so stop comparing them. When it ain't right, it ain't right! Just sugar coating it all the different ways you want to doesn't malke to right. Period!

Ok Fred. Why should non-residents be afforded cheap permits for any wildlife license. Why should it be up to the residents of one state to pay for the recreation of the residents of another? And why cant a state decide to manage their resource how they see fit? You say big game permits and falconry are different subjects...they are not...except for the fact that agencies are losing money on falconry and if they are lucky, breaking even on their big game program. Even if the fees are not created to cover costs, lets look at costs:

One MFW&P junior staff member (the ones they make process permits) is making 30k/yr at best, but costing probably 50k/yr in total benefits. In year 1 of open season, lets say Montana will realistically receive most permits for only a few species such as 35 applicants for only 3 species (eyass/passage goshawk, eyass merlin, passage gyrfalcon) so if they do a lottery then they will process lets say 30 eligible applicants for the revenue of 9 permits. so at best they might take in 1800 in total revenue but could easily burn 40 hrs of manpower costing the state ~$1000-2000 minimum in salary and misc. Its not big money but when you do the math, permit fees are all of a sudden realisitic and the issue is not so personal but just a mundane part of life you have to deal with. Falconry obviously will never pay its way,Ö200 is just slowing the bleeding, not that it was intended to do so. People wonder why goverment is broke yet demand free services and respond as voters by further gutting the agency's funding...brutal irony.

eastern F&G agency revenues are way higher due to higher populations and private land so they have less management costs and can dedicate more funds to free services. In the west, F&G agencies must dedicate resources across HUGE PUBLIC land areas containing a lot more wildlife abundance and diversity (more game species, fur-bearer sp and non-game species etc). Out of state hunter license fees are not even close to paying for operations and they are declining Ė F&G agencies in the red across the board in most rocky mtn states and actually falling into a state of emergency about their future.

not that any of these arguments really matter to you, the bottom line is that a growing segment of the falconry community thinks they have the RIGHT to birds probably due to captive breeding making access easy with a credit card. you dont hear hard-core elk hunters arguing about fees and their right to cheap elk....they know well that the units that have lots of big mature bulls are a precious commodity, and they might spend a lifetime to draw and gladly dump 600-800 for a tag and realize that trophy status of that unit remains so because it is restricted and unique. For some reason this reverence for the wild (raptor) resource has been lacking in the falconry community in my opinion. Value (monetary and otherwise) has declined to the point where birds come and go as a cheap commodity.

As for Montanaís sentiment towards non-residents there is a context to this both specifically (falconry) and generally (all hunting). I have personally heard of several stories of illegal take in the 80's by out of staters that considered MOntana to be basically the wild frontier in which to do whatever. Eastern and central montana is seems overrun with non-residents every fall. and western montana the same along with all the best trout waters. The influx of sportsmen still never ceases to amaze me.

Landowners are posting more and more and access is starting to suffer....residents began growing tired of this trend in the late 90's. people like to think that montana is the "last best place" - just a wide open sportsman's paradise - the dream destinaton so to speak...the truth is that out of 4 other western states i have hunted, Montana has the highest river fishing, bird hunting, and deer hunting pressure I have ever seen and itís a HUGE state. All of this activity has an economic benefit but also a cost to local sportsman and landowner relations. The world is getting small.

anyway back to christmas. Best to all. -J

falcon56
12-25-2011, 07:30 PM
Fred,
I'm curious why you think that we(falconers)or falconry should be treated differently than the other sports that harvest a resource in some way, or am I reading your comments wrong. You haven't forgotten that falconry is the ONLY sport and/or group of sportsmen/women that are legally allowed to capure a wild animal and with the proper permits keep it in captivity for their recreation. No one else can legally go out and take a wild animal anymore and legally keep it as a pet or whatever, at least as far as I know. Don't you agree that puts us in a unique situation that warrants a different set of parameters when it comes to permitting? None of the states have the same regulations as another regarding fur trapping, upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, small game hunting and yes big game hunting. Permits for any hands on use of a harvestable natural/native resource really all comes down to having the same concerns by the individual states to protect that resource as best fits their particular situation. How could we have the same regulations across the board for all 50 states whether it pertains to falconry or any of the other sporting ventures. How would a Hawaii be able to conform to the same regs used in any of the mainland states? Again, maybe I'm totally misinterpreting your comments.

FredFogg
12-25-2011, 08:11 PM
Ok Fred. Why should non-residents be afforded cheap permits for any wildlife license. Why should it be up to the residents of one state to pay for the recreation of the residents of another?

Where did I say for the residents to pay for the recreation of non-residents. Don't start saying things that weren't said. You are only clouding the issue of stupid fees for a sheet of paper.

And why cant a state decide to manage their resource how they see fit? You say big game permits and falconry are different subjects...they are not...except for the fact that agencies are losing money on falconry and if they are lucky, breaking even on their big game program. Even if the fees are not created to cover costs, lets look at costs:

One MFW&P junior staff member (the ones they make process permits) is making 30k/yr at best, but costing probably 50k/yr in total benefits. In year 1 of open season, lets say Montana will realistically receive most permits for only a few species such as 35 applicants for only 3 species (eyass/passage goshawk, eyass merlin, passage gyrfalcon) so if they do a lottery then they will process lets say 30 eligible applicants for the revenue of 9 permits. so at best they might take in 1800 in total revenue but could easily burn 40 hrs of manpower costing the state ~$1000-2000 minimum in salary and misc. Its not big money but when you do the math, permit fees are all of a sudden realisitic and the issue is not so personal but just a mundane part of life you have to deal with. Falconry obviously will never pay its way,Ö200 is just slowing the bleeding, not that it was intended to do so. People wonder why goverment is broke yet demand free services and respond as voters by further gutting the agency's funding...brutal irony.

All I am going to say here is 40 hrs to process 35 applicants, that right there is the problem with state and federal government. People don't expect things for free but we do expect our state and federal government to do their jobs in a reasonable manner. That is unacceptable!


eastern F&G agency revenues are way higher due to higher populations and private land so they have less management costs and can dedicate more funds to free services. In the west, F&G agencies must dedicate resources across HUGE PUBLIC land areas containing a lot more wildlife abundance and diversity (more game species, fur-bearer sp and non-game species etc). Out of state hunter license fees are not even close to paying for operations and they are declining Ė F&G agencies in the red across the board in most rocky mtn states and actually falling into a state of emergency about their future.

not that any of these arguments really matter to you, the bottom line is that a growing segment of the falconry community thinks they have the RIGHT to birds probably due to captive breeding making access easy with a credit card. you dont hear hard-core elk hunters arguing about fees and their right to cheap elk....they know well that the units that have lots of big mature bulls are a precious commodity, and they might spend a lifetime to draw and gladly dump 600-800 for a tag and realize that trophy status of that unit remains so because it is restricted and unique. For some reason this reverence for the wild (raptor) resource has been lacking in the falconry community in my opinion. Value (monetary and otherwise) has declined to the point where birds come and go as a cheap commodity.

Again, comparing apples and oranges! You won't ever get it because you are part of the problem!

As for Montanaís sentiment towards non-residents there is a context to this both specifically (falconry) and generally (all hunting). I have personally heard of several stories of illegal take in the 80's by out of staters that considered MOntana to be basically the wild frontier in which to do whatever. Eastern and central montana is seems overrun with non-residents every fall. and western montana the same along with all the best trout waters. The influx of sportsmen still never ceases to amaze me.

Again, quit whining about something that happened in the 80's, it is getting old and doesn't apply to now. Time to get over it!


Landowners are posting more and more and access is starting to suffer....residents began growing tired of this trend in the late 90's. people like to think that montana is the "last best place" - just a wide open sportsman's paradise - the dream destinaton so to speak...the truth is that out of 4 other western states i have hunted, Montana has the highest river fishing, bird hunting, and deer hunting pressure I have ever seen and itís a HUGE state. All of this activity has an economic benefit but also a cost to local sportsman and landowner relations. The world is getting small.

anyway back to christmas. Best to all. -J

And all of this is because of falconers wanting non-resident take! Give me a break!



I have said all I am going to say about Montana's stupid fee of $200. Congratulations to them for getting it put in and Ray, this is nothing against you. I know you didn't create that number, you are just a falconer trying to get take for other falconers and I respect that. But for you to post it on a forum as an announcement and not expect folks to reply about it and then to take it personal. Well, you just have to have thicker skin.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

bluejack
12-26-2011, 04:28 AM
It's only fair to point out that by allowing out of state take, MT falconers will be allowed to trap passage peregrines in reciprocal states.

frootdog
12-26-2011, 05:33 AM
People need to take a stand!

How do you propose this? Boycot? Doubt the states would care much. Bitch and moan? Again doubt the states would care much. In all seriousness how do you propose we "take a stand"?

Every time this comes up you (and others) have to piss and moan about the fees. I'm not trying to ba a d*ck but the thread was to ask people to support MT in the quest for out of state take, but 2 comments about cost of the permits among other things has sent the thread into the gutter. The same thing happens when someone asks for supportive comments for thier state to adopt the new regs. People from other states start arguing about what state x should and should not adopt. I for one will send in my supportive comment and if the fee is too much for me to go trapping in MT then I will just go somewhere else. If I don't like the way state x did the regs then I will not move to state x. It's just that simple.

I will say that in the grand scheme of things $200 is not all that bad. Like someone already stated come to TX and you will drop $400 give or take to trap. None of it's based on time required to do paperwork as you well know. Kudos to the states like MN, OK, KS, etc that have little to no fee to trap. I will also say that the falconers in TX (the FRC specifically) have worked for years to get the out of state trapping fees reduced and may finally be making headway toward that goal.

FredFogg
12-26-2011, 09:21 AM
How do you propose this? Boycot? Doubt the states would care much. Bitch and moan? Again doubt the states would care much. In all seriousness how do you propose we "take a stand"?

Every time this comes up you (and others) have to piss and moan about the fees. I'm not trying to ba a d*ck but the thread was to ask people to support MT in the quest for out of state take, but 2 comments about cost of the permits among other things has sent the thread into the gutter. The same thing happens when someone asks for supportive comments for thier state to adopt the new regs. People from other states start arguing about what state x should and should not adopt. I for one will send in my supportive comment and if the fee is too much for me to go trapping in MT then I will just go somewhere else. If I don't like the way state x did the regs then I will not move to state x. It's just that simple.

I will say that in the grand scheme of things $200 is not all that bad. Like someone already stated come to TX and you will drop $400 give or take to trap. None of it's based on time required to do paperwork as you well know. Kudos to the states like MN, OK, KS, etc that have little to no fee to trap. I will also say that the falconers in TX (the FRC specifically) have worked for years to get the out of state trapping fees reduced and may finally be making headway toward that goal.


How do I propose doing it, by speaking up. If everyone just lets things happen and doesn't speak up when they disagree, how will anyone know they don't like what is being done.

And coming from the worst state for non-resident take cost, I can see how you think it is ok! frus) I sent in my letter of support and stated so, but this is an open forum and if someone post something that I disagree with, I have the right to voice my opinion. And if we don't speak up, other states might follow the suit of Texas and Montana, so maybe by seeing that others disagree with it, they will speak up to try and have those fees reduced.

oscarpack@yahoo.com
12-26-2011, 09:54 AM
Thanks for posting this notice Ray, I sent mine in
Oscar


Montana FWP has initiated revisions to the current falconry regs. to allow non resident take of raptors beginning spring of 2012. In a nutshell, it will allow 3 raptors of each species, excluding for the present time, nestling peregrines. A $5 application fee is required for non residents and if successful in the drawing, a $200 capture fee is put in place by the new administrative rules. The comment period ends December 30, 2011 so there is only 1 week left to submit comments either supporting or not.
Please submit TERSE comments, ie: "I am(or not) in support of the proposed non resident raptor take in Montana", or use your own words, to Bette Moe at bmoe@mt.gov. Finalization of the rule by the Commission could occur Feb. 16, 2012, with the rule going into place March 9, 2012. Thanks to all that will take the time to comment positively.

Tom Smith
12-26-2011, 01:07 PM
How do you propose this? Boycot? Doubt the states would care much. Bitch and moan? Again doubt the states would care much. In all seriousness how do you propose we "take a stand"?

Every time this comes up you (and others) have to piss and moan about the fees. I'm not trying to ba a d*ck but the thread was to ask people to support MT in the quest for out of state take, but 2 comments about cost of the permits among other things has sent the thread into the gutter. The same thing happens when someone asks for supportive comments for thier state to adopt the new regs. People from other states start arguing about what state x should and should not adopt. I for one will send in my supportive comment and if the fee is too much for me to go trapping in MT then I will just go somewhere else. If I don't like the way state x did the regs then I will not move to state x. It's just that simple.

I will say that in the grand scheme of things $200 is not all that bad. Like someone already stated come to TX and you will drop $400 give or take to trap. None of it's based on time required to do paperwork as you well know. Kudos to the states like MN, OK, KS, etc that have little to no fee to trap. I will also say that the falconers in TX (the FRC specifically) have worked for years to get the out of state trapping fees reduced and may finally be making headway toward that goal.

I believe in Idaho the non-resident permit fees are in a set ratio to what residents pay something like ten to one. I have not done an in depth study to see if that is true or not in Idaho's case but that is usually the case here.

I believe in Texas residents pay nothing for a peregrine permit or other permits that are offered to non-residents for exorbitant fees. So if you you go a ten to one ratio for fees shouldn't non-residents be charged 0 also because 10x0 is 0.

And also it seems only fair of all states that since BOPs are federally protected that fees should be in accordance to what ever those states require for other federally protected wildlife like waterfowl. In a state where there is non-resident hunting on non-federally protected wildlife then that state is free to ask whatever for permits but in the case of federally protected wildlife any taxpayer across the country has already paid in some way for the protection of that wildlife especially in the case of states with large chunks of public lands managed by the feds.

Over pricing is in effect just another way of exclusion not to say that I feel Montana's $200 fee is overpricing since Wyoming charges $242 But I think Utah did drop to $110 from $242. Texas of course is way off the charts.

wyodjm
12-26-2011, 01:39 PM
As I mentioned earlier, Wyoming charges $242 for a nonresident capture fee. All license fees are determined and established by our Legislature, not the Game and Fish Dept.

Also, if one type of hunting or fishing license fee goes up, all licenses go up proportionally across the board. For example, if the G+F requests a 5% increase in all license fees (residents and nonresidents) then every license, no matter what it is goes up.

Nonresident falconry capture permits aren't singled out to be $242. They've just gone up over the years due to overall license fee increases that the Legislature has set.

I doubt falconry permit fees are even on anyone's radar screen here.

PeteJ
12-26-2011, 02:21 PM
It's only fair to point out that by allowing out of state take, MT falconers will be allowed to trap passage peregrines in reciprocal states.
They already did, BEFORE they had reciprocity.

PeteJ
12-26-2011, 02:35 PM
And also it seems only fair of all states that since BOPs are federally protected that fees should be in accordance to what ever those states require for other federally protected wildlife like waterfowl. In a state where there is non-resident hunting on non-federally protected wildlife then that state is free to ask whatever for permits but in the case of federally protected wildlife any taxpayer across the country has already paid in some way for the protection of that wildlife especially in the case of states with large chunks of public lands managed by the feds.

Over pricing is in effect just another way of exclusion not to say that I feel Montana's $200 fee is overpricing since Wyoming charges $242 But I think Utah did drop to $110 from $242. Texas of course is way off the charts.
I would tend to agree with you assessment Tom. A great scheme would be that the state you're going to should match what your own state charges for an out of stater to come to your state. That would motivate the falconry community in each state to get the lowest price for non-resident take, on the grounds of fairness, as it may eventually help them when they go someplace else.
Unfortunately, as many people have pointed out, the fees really do not tend to be negotiable as they are rarely set by the game and fish departments anyway. But, perhaps a clause or amendment to license fee or whatever means you want to use (perhaps a non-resident has to buy a 'Temporary falconry permit' to take, rather than a hunting license to take), and that permit is based purely on recipirocity between states. If you have reciprocity in your state then the price for the falconry permit is minimal (matching), but if you don't have reciprocity, then you have to buy a non-resident hunting license along with the falconry permit from that state which can be expensive as some that are in place now. This might provide a loop hole of sorts to get the permit out of the mainstream permit system where moose, elk, bear, etc. happen to reside, and back into the direct control of the game and fish department.

goshawkr
12-26-2011, 06:39 PM
They already did, BEFORE they had reciprocity.

Then your memory differs from mine.

I recall a certain MT falconer, very prominent in the NAFA leadership, who was extremely vocal about the evils of non-resident take, right up to the point it became clear he would not have access to peregrines in other states due to reciprocity and then he suddenly became a vocal proponent of non-resident take and claimed to have always been so. And as I recall, Monatana's NR take came very recently. In fact, has it even been put in place yet??

I'd really just like to throw some things out there....

First, it is a violation of the US constitution for ANY state to discriminate against those who are not residents of that state with regards to access to wildlife resources. There have been three US supreme court decisions on that matter that I am aware of. No, none of these pertained to falconry. But they did involve non-resident hunters who wanted acess to harvest wildlife. This means, in brief, that it is illegal for a state to not have a non-resident take if they have a resident take. This also means that if a state resident is allowed to take a species, non residents must be allowed to take that species as well.

Second, I havent read through these cases in detail, and I am no lawyer, but it makes me wonder - are higher permit fees for non residents legal? Are quota limits that only apply to non-residents descriminatory? Certainly we cant have every falconer in the country descending on one small raptor population and wiping it out (and yes, that IS biologoically and mathimatically possible).

Wildlife politics is a funny game. Biology has little to do with it, in the end. Its all about what you can get sold to various oversight groups (legislatures, game commissions, etc) without raising too much of a fuss from the various user groups they cater to. And in terms of the biology that is entirely rooted on statistics. Which, as Mark Twain wisely observed: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Statistics are entirely dependant on the point of view they are framed in.

I am disappointed with the low numbers that Montana has established for thier non-resident take, but its a damn site better than the zero that it has been. I am VERY pleased that the Montana falconry community has stepped up, to whatever extent they have, and got this put in place. THANK YOU!! Unequivocally, thank you!

Once the camel's nose is under the tent, its very easy to get things moved if the will is combined with a little bit of political savvy. Bump up the quota numbers on a few commons species here, point out that the quotas will be biologically sustainable if they are raised on another species there, and all the while point out how much time and money is being wasted counting it all and poof - your there.

Of course, the down side to all this is that the preassure needs to come from within Montana, and Montana falconers, by absolute definition, have no selfish interest in getting these numbers adjusted. Its the very rare individual who will expend a large amount of effort unless they have a selfish interest in the matter - but it still happens.

High permit fees do help - because it creates a selfish interest to get things moving for the Wildlife Agencies. Thats the bait we were able to use here in Washington a few years ago to crack open non-resident take to species other than kestrels and redtails. We got our wildife department excited about the fees they would collect and they did all the rest of the work.

My comments in support of the changes have been sent in.

PeteJ
12-26-2011, 08:16 PM
Then your memory differs from mine.

I recall a certain MT falconer, very prominent in the NAFA leadership, who was extremely vocal about the evils of non-resident take, right up to the point it became clear he would not have access to peregrines in other states due to reciprocity and then he suddenly became a vocal proponent of non-resident take and claimed to have always been so. And as I recall, Monatana's NR take came very recently. In fact, has it even been put in place yet??

Nope, same memory. That's what I meant. That happened BEFORE they had reciprocity set up as they're just getting around to it now..which is what this is about. I'm sure its a pipe dream to think that reciprocity will be fair and equitable. I'm also sure that if a state employee of the game and fish were turning away someone that wanted to take a bird for a significant fee (400 bucks let's say) just because their state did not have reciprocity in place, I'm sure that employee would be doing some major backpedaling to keep their job. I personally think that some sort of favoritism should take place between states that do have reciprocity though, otherwise what's the point of having such cooperation in the first place? Duh?!!

Chris L.
12-27-2011, 10:33 AM
Hey Guys,

Just a friendly reminder about posting peoples names who are not here to defend themselves. Please refrain from using peoples names, especially if they are not posting on this thread.

Thank for understanding!

PeteJ
12-27-2011, 10:40 AM
And we were being so good at beating around that bush too!! Sigh...

clevelandk1
12-27-2011, 11:04 AM
i think it is a good step. good for you guys for getting it done. $200 is i think about what idaho does for non-residents or close to it and they also have a cap for non-res take for various species although it is never met by demand - not even close. Mt is requiring you to essentially buy a tag...just like an non-res elk hunter. The reason for cost disparity often has to do with issues such as what raptor resources are in that state that may not be in other states (expected demand) and demand on the agency to administer the paperwork. I can buy a buck tag in several eastern states for a pitance, and the same tag would cost you 400 in many western states...thats because you are applying for a permit that is in high demand, for a populations in less density across the landscape and that resides mostly on public land - the managment of which has to rest on the resource agency not the pivate lanowner citizen. And Michigan probably doesnt execute a fee because people arent knocking the door down to trap there.

From the standpoint of legal principle, i personally think it is a little wierd that states can collect a permit fee for a migratory bird take...but it is what it is and i am sure most F&G agencies are well in the red when it comes to paying for administrative costs through permit fees.

Prior to 2010, the Michigan DNR didn't have the authority to charge for any falconry permits of any type. We had to get the state legislature to pass a bill to authorize us to issue a falconry permit (this was part of our transition to state-only falconry permitting), and we argued at that time that the permit should be added to a section of state law that allowed us to charge a fee. So when the $100 FWS fee went away, we instituted a $100 state fee. The legislature probably would have balked if we hadn't reassured them that the user fees would not change.

This brings in about $3000/year to the DNR which is considerably less than is spent just on staff time for falconry issues (including updating regulations, issuing permits, reporting to FWS, etc. - we're working now on finalizing Michigan's first falconry manual, and I'm hoping to update our falconry exam in 2012); the balance of the program's costs are paid through hunting license fees since we get virtually no General Fund support and what little we get is dedicated to other programs.

Our raptor conservation programs (e.g. peregrine falcon restoration, forest raptor and owl surveys, osprey restoration, etc.) are supported by Nongame Fund donations, loon license plate fees, and hunting license fees. So far, it hasn't been worth the time and energy (and loss of management flexibility) involved to enshrine our raptor capture permits in state law - a move that would be necessary to be able to charge a fee for these permits. On the other hand, Department budget updates have become a litany of doom and gloom (hunting and fishing license fees haven't increased since 1996, and hunter and angler numbers keep declining every year), and higher powers may one day see this as a worthwhile endeavor.

On the subject of nonresident take here, we generally have a relatively small number of nonresidents coming to Michigan to take birds, but we do offer opportunities to take goshawk, great horned owl, red-tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, American kestrel, and passage peregrine falcon (in years when we are allocated at least 2 birds by FWS). Congrats to the folks in Montana for their work to create a cooperative coalition of stakeholders on the issue of wild take and their success to date in crafting a proposal with a broad level of support.

Karen

goshawks00
12-27-2011, 11:30 AM
Karen you've read this thread , care to comment on what would be involved in getting fee reciprocity for nonresident trapping here?

Chris L.
12-27-2011, 11:40 AM
And we were being so good at beating around that bush too!! Sigh...

LOL, thanks Pete. I really appreciate you guys trying to not mention names. I know its hard to do.

clevelandk1
12-27-2011, 01:00 PM
Karen you've read this thread , care to comment on what would be involved in getting fee reciprocity for nonresident trapping here?

Barry:

For us to charge nonresidents a fee for trapping raptors would likely require a political battle for relatively little gain.

We have permit/license fees that generally fall into one of two categories: ones set by the state legislature, and ones set by the Department. The legislature that we currently have has been fairly vocally opposed to any new or increased fees of any sort. This is a big part of why there haven't been hunting and fishing license fee increases in 15 years - all of those fees are set by the legislature. There is a subset of permits that the legislature gives the DNR the authority to set fees for - you can see some of these in section 5.110 of the Wildlife Conservation Order. They're for things like taxidermy permits, Canada goose control/removal permits, and falconry permits. We had to get the $100 falconry permit fee approved by the Natural Resources Commission, and the fact that it replaced the federal $100 permit fee (and is for a 3 year permit) is a large part of what made it palatable to that group.

In general, nonresident fees are set the same for all nonresidents, regardless of state of origin (I believe there were some arguments made in this thread that each nonresident should be charged the same fee that nonresidents are charged in their home state, which is not typical in our fee structures). In general, again, when there are both resident and nonresident fees for an activity, the nonresident fees are set at a level higher than that for residents (since the function of state government is to focus on the needs and wants of the state's residents, this makes a certain sense).

So if you wanted to get a single standard fee for nonresident take, it would mean mustering the political will to approve this move, which also runs the risk of opening a can of worms around the subject of a fee for resident take. We discussed it briefly, but not seriously, when we instituted the $100 falconry permit fee. With enough support, this type of permit fee structure might be able to get approval.

If you wanted some sort of reciprocal fee structure based on state of residence, I doubt it would gain much agency support given the amount of staff time that would have to be dedicated to contacting every state (and probably the Canadian provinces) to determine their fee structure and what would constitute an equivalent/equitable fee in Michigan (e.g. what happens if they're trapping something in Michigan which they can't take in their home state?). This isn't a one time outlay of effort as any state may change its fee structure during the year so we'd need to be contacting every state wildlife agency on at least an annual basis. Unless we charged several hundred dollars for each permit, we'd likely lose money on this and alienate a lot more people than would ever see a benefit from this effort.

If there's some real interest from Michigan falconers in getting fees attached to raptor capture permits in Michigan, I will certainly raise the suggestion with our regulations staff and discuss the viability of pursuing the creation of permit fees.

Karen

harrishawk_79
12-27-2011, 01:40 PM
why would we want to have fees applied to anything the whole point is that other states shouldnt be charging.we have free trapping permits why would we want to change that so we have to pay to trap sounds stupid to me no thanks

PeteJ
12-27-2011, 01:54 PM
Karen wrote (in part):
"If you wanted some sort of reciprocal fee structure based on state of residence, I doubt it would gain much agency support given the amount of staff time that would have to be dedicated to contacting every state (and probably the Canadian provinces) to determine their fee structure and what would constitute an equivalent/equitable fee in Michigan (e.g. what happens if they're trapping something in Michigan which they can't take in their home state?). This isn't a one time outlay of effort as any state may change its fee structure during the year so we'd need to be contacting every state wildlife agency on at least an annual basis."
I am sure that all fees for permits are available online so contact should take as much time as it takes to google their home page. Most fees would be updated I'm sure and changes probably would be noted with 'change by Jan. 1,'.
Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean with your e.g. listed above? What does that have to do with anything in determining fee price? You're saying that someone from North Carolina that would want to come to Michigan to trap or take a Gos would be paying some price that is different because its a Gos and not available in NC, compared to someone who was going from Michigan to NC to pull a Cooper's? I thought all this time we had been told that 'we' can't put a price on the wild birds because 'we' didn't own them. But it almost sounds like you might be hinting about a price hierarchy based on which species it is? Could you explain that in more detail for us please? Please keep in mind that these birds are only within your state because there is a border on a map that says they are, I'm just sayin'! They are all covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
And one last item. I always hear a lot of talk about how much extra work this is for the state game and fish departments. Why exactly is that? And is it complicated mostly so that the position can be justified? And why then is it cheaper for some states to do exactly the same thing that other states are doing, in some cases by hundreds of dollars? Up until recently we were all covered by a FEDERAL permit, which was a standardized data base. It should NOT be any more difficult for someone to come to another state to pull a bird as it is for someone to come to another state to hunt a duck, especially if they have already bought the federal duck stamp in their own state!

Silver Sage
12-27-2011, 01:56 PM
Let me preface my comments by saying first I hate any fees as much as anyone else, I to wish there was less govenment involvement...

Now my number one complaint is to those that are bitching that non-res fees are this or that. The simple fact is that if I were to leave from here and head to Montana on a trapping trip I am certain that it would involve several tanks of gas at $100 + each, some form of accommodations, lost wages or use of vacation time, meals at various restaurants and many other miscellaneous expenditures. This is starting to sound like a form of recreation/vacation and I have yet to take a vacation that did not cost me money. I had a Utah Peregrine permit a few years ago and did not end up getting a bird. I spent well over $1000 in addition to my $110 capture permit looking for a ďpassageĒ bird down there and while I saw a good # of birds I didnít end up with one. I did spend several weeks of fun in some of Utahís lovely redrock country and hung out with some great falconers that were glad to show me around. Now if I were in it to just get a bird the most economical way, I would have called any breeder in the country and ordered one and picked it up at the airport.

My second thought is on Fredís theory of ď$200 for a piece of paperĒ. I can assure all of you that we donít want the states to look into the costs associated with falconry. Yes there is the administrative/clerical aspect, but look at the budgets of the fish and game departments of the western states, the administration expenses pale in comparison to the field personal, habitat issues and misc. overhead that are involved. Anyone that has any business sense realizes if they looked at things from a business point of view we would all be up shit creek and that ďpaperĒ that takes ten minutes to fill out, review and file at a cost of $25 per hour by a secretary and the secretarial budget consumes 3% of the budget then a $400 fee might be appropriate for residents and non-residents alike. After all if the fees alone were to cover the costs then they would be much higher. That then brings us to the point of resident vs. non-resident. In most states the fish and game receives funding from the general funds of the state government, ie. State income tax, sales tax etc and nonresidents do nothing to fund this. They come in spend a few hundred to a few grand on a hunting trip and thatís it.

In my opinion we as falconers should be happy that we arenít charged like the way a business would charge us and should be happy that they donít charge us each time we send in a 3-186 or the like. We should also be glad that people have changed their opinions that will allow us more freedom to VISIT states like Montana if we so wish to vacation there and maybe trap a bird. I guess the real solution is to get rid of government all together then we will all be happier.

wyodjm
12-27-2011, 02:33 PM
Iím not in the least trying to be argumentative, but why does this all have to be so complicated?

Either a take of a few raptors for falconry has an impact on the raptor resource, as a whole, or it doesnít. Either falconry has an impact on the raptor resource or it doesnít. Weíve been pontificating for decades that it doesnít. Yet when the rubber meets the road, the states act as though we do have an impact. Which is it?

Wyoming has had a nonresident take for falconry for as long as there has probably been regulated falconry in the U.S. We dumped quotas on species harvest over 20 years ago on gyrs, prairies, merlins, and goshawks. Except peregrines. And technically, theyíre a common species now! Wyoming came to the conclusion that falconers taking birds is no big deal. They have no impact. Zilch! As far as nonresident take is concerned we figured that the resource belonged to everyone.

Now a few states are thinking of openning up nonresident take after decades of having their borders welded shut to any outsiders and you'd think falconers died and went to heaven. I say good for those states like Montana, but honestly...what took you so long?

NowÖthe feds have told Wyoming that they are going to conduct a national lottery on who can come into Wyoming and take six eagles. When have the feds ever held a national lottery on any wildlife species before? When?Öplease tell me. Now Iím thinking that they better have some consideration for residents when they work their formula and hold a ďnationalĒ lottery.

All this talk about resident and nonresident take is starting to get personal. If the feds make Wyoming eat this after we take over the federal regulations and set the precedent by holding a national lottery on eagles, a non-threatened, non-endangered species in 2012, and donít consider residents at all in the lottery, all bets are off on every other species in the U.S., whether you agree or not.

If you say that eagles are different and the eagle situation is unique, then I say you donít have a grasp of the big picture. I say the whole issue of wild take is at stake. Nationwide.

goshawkr
12-27-2011, 02:38 PM
Karen,

I want to start by saying I have been very impressed with what I have seen of you, what little that is from the other side of the country. Our falconry program administrator is great as well, but its nice to see we are not the only state with the good fortune of having a high caliber administrator at the helm.




If you wanted some sort of reciprocal fee structure based on state of residence, I doubt it would gain much agency support given the amount of staff time that would have to be dedicated to contacting every state (and probably the Canadian provinces) to determine their fee structure and what would constitute an equivalent/equitable fee in Michigan (e.g. what happens if they're trapping something in Michigan which they can't take in their home state?). This isn't a one time outlay of effort as any state may change its fee structure during the year so we'd need to be contacting every state wildlife agency on at least an annual basis. Unless we charged several hundred dollars for each permit, we'd likely lose money on this and alienate a lot more people than would ever see a benefit from this effort.

This notion of reciprocal fee structure gets very complex very quickly. The research is not static. States change their fees all the time.

I love the concept of reciprical take, but I dont think it is really enforceable. Also, based on the supreme court cases I mentioned earlier, I dont think its constitutional. Enforcebale or not, legal or not, its been a great lever to get non resident take opened up in several states, includeing mine.

I love the idea of a reciprical fee structure - its a great way to encourage falconers (and other hunters) to push their states to lower non-resident fees. But what a mess to research, implement and enforce! The only real practicle way to go about it is to encode the fee in the laws in a flexible manner, and push the research burden back onto the applicant. Have them provide how much their state charges NR to take the species they are after, with proof, when they apply for their NR take permit. Most states, including my own, have their fee strucuters very rigidly encoded in the legal framework and dont allow for flexibility at all.

PeteJ
12-27-2011, 02:42 PM
The point that Fred and I are trying to make is, that they, the govt., are making it seem like to come and get that bird is going to cost this much money, but these are wild birds and they are not allow to put a price on them anymore than we are. WE can't sell wild birds, why should they be able to?
Question...how much difference in price is there for me as a non-resident, to come and KILL my limit of quail or pheasants in Texas, or Huns/Grouse in Montana, in comparison to this? You see what I'm getting at? Are people really spending 400 bucks to go to Texas to shoot quail or pheasants?
I'll get back to you with a price comparison of what non-resident take costs here.
NOTE: I just checked and our non-resident take permit fee is $20.00..that's twenty dollars.

goshawkr
12-27-2011, 02:45 PM
If you say that eagles are different and the eagle situation is unique, then I say you donít have a grasp of the big picture. I say the whole issue of wild take is at stake. Nationwide.

Sorry Dan, but you did NOT emphasis that last bit enough. Great to talk to you last night BTW.

I just wanted it to ring loud and clear. This applies to all species.

Goshawks and/or gyrs could well be next.

clevelandk1
12-27-2011, 02:57 PM
Karen wrote (in part):
"If you wanted some sort of reciprocal fee structure based on state of residence, I doubt it would gain much agency support given the amount of staff time that would have to be dedicated to contacting every state (and probably the Canadian provinces) to determine their fee structure and what would constitute an equivalent/equitable fee in Michigan (e.g. what happens if they're trapping something in Michigan which they can't take in their home state?). This isn't a one time outlay of effort as any state may change its fee structure during the year so we'd need to be contacting every state wildlife agency on at least an annual basis."
I am sure that all fees for permits are available online so contact should take as much time as it takes to google their home page. Most fees would be updated I'm sure and changes probably would be noted with 'change by Jan. 1,'.
Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean with your e.g. listed above? What does that have to do with anything in determining fee price? You're saying that someone from North Carolina that would want to come to Michigan to trap or take a Gos would be paying some price that is different because its a Gos and not available in NC, compared to someone who was going from Michigan to NC to pull a Cooper's? I thought all this time we had been told that 'we' can't put a price on the wild birds because 'we' didn't own them. But it almost sounds like you might be hinting about a price hierarchy based on which species it is? Could you explain that in more detail for us please? Please keep in mind that these birds are only within your state because there is a border on a map that says they are, I'm just sayin'! They are all covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
And one last item. I always hear a lot of talk about how much extra work this is for the state game and fish departments. Why exactly is that? And is it complicated mostly so that the position can be justified? And why then is it cheaper for some states to do exactly the same thing that other states are doing, in some cases by hundreds of dollars? Up until recently we were all covered by a FEDERAL permit, which was a standardized data base. It should NOT be any more difficult for someone to come to another state to pull a bird as it is for someone to come to another state to hunt a duck, especially if they have already bought the federal duck stamp in their own state!

Pete:

Let me start by saying that I don't think a convoluted fee structure is the solution to anything, but it was raised by people posting to this forum so I responded to the idea. I'm a fan of simplicity in this as in most things, and the reciprocal fee structure idea seems to carry a lot of unnecessary complexity, especially once you start thinking about actual implementation.

Regarding the subject of who "owns" the wildlife, none of the critters that are taken in Michigan have any respect for the state line, whether they're migratory or otherwise. It reminds me of a conversation from a legislative hearing when I worked for NH and a state rep wanted to know how many moose were in NH and how many were in ME. When he heard the numbers, he wanted to know if ME was counting some of "our" moose, and he had to be informed that the moose didn't think of themselves as "NH moose" or "ME moose" and crossed the state line all willy-nilly with no respect for the boundary at all. :)

As far as how easy it would be, without actually spending the time to look up all the fees, I suspect you'd be talking about at least 2-4 work days to track down this information from every US state and Canadian province, then you need to meet with stakeholder groups to discuss the proposed changes and finalize a recommendation (in the case of falconry regulation changes, we meet with the Michigan Hawking Club and Michigan Audubon Society), write a memo for NRC consideration, put together a presentation for the NRC and actually attend the meeting to present it (and some meetings are held 5-8 hours drive away from our Lansing office). This is an educated guess because I tried to pull together a list of the legal status (threatened, endangered, or some other status) for peregrine falcons in every US state and Canadian province a couple of years back and stopped after 2 days of googling with only a dozen or so gaps that couldn't be filled in from web sites - and I didn't want to spend a couple of days playing phone tag to fill the rest of the gaps. Not everyone lists their T&E species online, and not everyone provides all of their falconry information online. Generally, I invest about 30-40 hours into a regulatory change, what with the meetings and written justifications for our recommendations. So, sum total for one fee addition/change: about 6-10 work days depending on how contentious or complex it is. When you consider that we cap nonresident take at 10 birds annually, the fees would have to be astronomical to justify the effort of any sort of reciprocal fee structure.

Keep in mind that the other work we do to improve falconry in Michigan costs money as well as the raptor conservation projects we've got going. It's tough for me to justify to the folks in charge that I should be spending much time working on falconry issues if the permit fees barely cover the time of our permit specialist who processes the paperwork and deals with the exams (we don't actually have a "falconry coordinator" position in Michigan, it's just a small part of a couple of people's jobs). Just because we don't charge a permit fee now doesn't mean that our falconry regulation and permitting is any cheaper than that in another state - it just means someone else is footing the bill.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming: Keep up the good work in Montana!

Karen

PeteJ
12-27-2011, 03:17 PM
Thanks Karen, and yes, I've heard all this before for decades and having had to work with such govt. entities as yourself (I was a wildlife research consultant for many years), so much of this I think is complexity for complexity sake. My philosophy for a long time was that if a person had a federal falconry permit and he obeyed the laws of the state he entered, he had already essentially 'bought the stamp' that allows him to take a bird within the United States of America because all the birds we, as falconers are concerned with, are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and therefore the federal govt. is responsible for putting limits on bag and season (like for ducks, mourning doves, sandhill cranes, etc.). Now I can see where a state might require an outsider to have to buy THEIR falconry permit to partake in this 'take' activity, and of course the state would have to come up with a temporary permit that would be for such and such duration, much like any other hunting license for a non-resident. And most states do require a hunting license (non-resident) as well as the non-resident 'take' permit (redundant I call that) to take a bird in their state. Which of course is why states such as Texas have such a high non-resident take fee, its a little gouging for just one bird...in comparison to a limit daily on quail or pheasant. As Dan mentioned...we have no impact, yet it sure seems like we do when it comes to some of these complications.
I do appreciate your candor on this though and you perspective is valuable. Frustrating to us though I must say. It leaves us scratching our heads wondering how they hell we ever got into this quagmire when we have no impact. I'm getting pretty thin on top because I've been at this for a long time like many others on here.

Peregrinus
12-27-2011, 05:08 PM
Issac etal.
Maybe you could better understand why some of us aren't exactly celebrating when the potential is there for even more problems on another level, ie the debacle in Oregon with the wild taken peregrine last year, as to why we wanted the permit to be more costly.

The debacle in Oregon was the result of some Oregon falconers breaking the law. It had nothing to do with non-resident take or the cost of a permit.

Peregrinus
12-27-2011, 07:18 PM
I applaud MT for taking this step- I know a lot of work went into it.

It's amazing that there are falconers who oppose non-resident take in their own state(s), but who are more than willing to hunt and trap in other states. It's quite audacious actually; no wonder they remain largely silent, or couch their opposition in vague, misleading language.

The permit fee seems high to me, but it pales in comparison to the travel costs of a trip to MT. Still, I like the idea of states charging fees equivalent to the fees of the applicant's home state. This would be consistent with trapping reciprocity, and no more difficult to administer.

Dirthawking
12-27-2011, 08:26 PM
It still baffles me that ANYBODY thinks that Falconer can just demand that a fee get changed and it happens. Each state is different on how fee structure is set up. And debate of states selling wild birds. Come on, you pay for hunting or fishing as a non resident.

Peregrinus
12-28-2011, 12:56 AM
Pete:
As far as how easy it would be, without actually spending the time to look up all the fees, I suspect you'd be talking about at least 2-4 work days to track down this information from every US state and Canadian province,

Karen:
Several states have adopted trapping reciprocity as a part of their state regs, (i.e. someone from Alaska will not be able to trap in Texas unless or until Alaska allows a Texas falconer to trap in Alaska.) For trapping or hunting fees, it would be a simple matter of having a spreadsheet with each of the 50 states' non-resident fees. This wouldn't take long to compile, and once compiled, it would take mere seconds to reference.

I think what people are complaining about is that we have here a federally managed resource- a resource which, as you observe, knows no state boundaries- but which is subject to a vast array of differing state fees for harvest. In the scheme of things, I don't much care either way, because the cost of interstate travel and lodging dwarfs whatever state fees might be imposed. But the inconsistencies and their attendant injustices are noted.

clevelandk1
12-28-2011, 11:17 AM
I think what people are complaining about is that we have here a federally managed resource- a resource which, as you observe, knows no state boundaries- but which is subject to a vast array of differing state fees for harvest. In the scheme of things, I don't much care either way, because the cost of interstate travel and lodging dwarfs whatever state fees might be imposed. But the inconsistencies and their attendant injustices are noted.

Bridget:

Fees and regulations for all sorts of take of wildlife (hunting licenses/permits, scientific collection permits, etc.) vary from state to state even though the critters themselves cross state lines at will - including hunted migratory birds (e.g. duck hunting costs $35 in MI and $49 in OH for residents, or $89 and $155 for nonresidents). Fees are generally set based on demand and the costs of supporting programs provided by the agencies charging the fees and are likely not based solely on the cost of the person processing an individual form. In other words, your permit fee may help cover the costs associated with grassland conservation programs (which help northern harriers, short-eared owls, American kestrels, and red-tailed hawks here in Michigan, to name a few), restoration programs for rare species of raptors, and other programs that provide an indirect benefit to falconers.

The FWS made the decision that the bulk of falconry regulation and program oversight would be passed to the states, and it now falls squarely in the states' laps as to how to handle the extra overhead of that decision. The falconry community does have the ability to get more standardization of falconry regulations nationally, but it would involve convincing FWS to take the responsibilities they passed to the states and administer the entire program themselves. Understand that this would not preclude the states from providing extra restrictions on falconry - that's the nature of our federal system - but it might give you some of the consistency you are looking for.

From what we've seen here for nonresident applications to take birds (few each year), and what we've heard from falconers in-state who travel out of state to get birds (few each year), we get much more value for our time by concentrating on what Michigan falconers are interested in getting for take in Michigan rather than spending a lot of time worrying about nonresident take here or elsewhere.

Karen

Tom Smith
12-28-2011, 12:59 PM
Why don't we do a cross reference of sorts here, post your state non-resident fee here and we can get an idea of how they look.

Idaho, I believe is $169 and requires a falconry permit from the home state.

clevelandk1
12-28-2011, 01:48 PM
Why don't we do a cross reference of sorts here, post your state non-resident fee here and we can get an idea of how they look.

Idaho, I believe is $169 and requires a falconry permit from the home state.

Tom:

The fee for a Michigan falconry permit is $100 for a 3 year permit which can be issued to both residents and nonresidents.

Nonresident falconers don't need to have a Michigan falconry permit if they have a valid state or state/federal permit from another US state (in much the same way that you wouldn't need a Michigan issued driver's license to drive in Michigan as long as you had a valid license recognized by the state).

There is no fee for residents or nonresidents to apply for or receive a raptor capture permit in Michigan, and there are no reciprocity restrictions on nonresidents applying for raptor capture permits.

If a falconer intends to hunt in Michigan, the appropriate hunting license(s) must be purchased in addition to possessing a falconry permit.

Karen

goshawks00
12-28-2011, 02:27 PM
Thank you Karen... This is the perfect model of how all states should be. It will never happen. As long as there are states that feel they need to strap excessive fees on the backs of non-residents and falconers will not stand up for 'all falconers' but rather than their own selfish desires we will have to put up with this elitism.

That in a nut shell is the only reason I am all for reciprocity. Let those that come here live by the same medicine that expect us to take.

goshawkr
12-28-2011, 02:57 PM
Karen:
Several states have adopted trapping reciprocity as a part of their state regs, (i.e. someone from Alaska will not be able to trap in Texas unless or until Alaska allows a Texas falconer to trap in Alaska.) For trapping or hunting fees, it would be a simple matter of having a spreadsheet with each of the 50 states' non-resident fees. This wouldn't take long to compile, and once compiled, it would take mere seconds to reference.

I think what people are complaining about is that we have here a federally managed resource- a resource which, as you observe, knows no state boundaries- but which is subject to a vast array of differing state fees for harvest. In the scheme of things, I don't much care either way, because the cost of interstate travel and lodging dwarfs whatever state fees might be imposed. But the inconsistencies and their attendant injustices are noted.

Having done similar research, it actually takes a bit longer to compile than it seems. It took me about 4 8 hour days to compile similar data. Then of course, there is the fact of maintaining it because the fees will periodically change. So then the task is repeated on a periodic basis.

I love the idea, I really do. Its the next natural extension of the reciprical take that has been such a wonderful hammer to crack open the NR take in several states (including Washington).

As I said before, I dont think reciprical take restrictions are legal. I also dont think they are remotely enforceable. Much as I love them, I think its all smoke and mirrors, and the notion of reciprical fees would be just one more layer of the illusion.

As Dan so elliquontly put it earlier - non resdient take is NO BIG DEAL. Pitty that so few seem to realize this. Quotas on NR take are, with very few exceptions, silly. They waste a lot of time and money and effort that could be spent on something really significant - like wildlife conservation.

goshawkr
12-28-2011, 02:59 PM
Why don't we do a cross reference of sorts here, post your state non-resident fee here and we can get an idea of how they look.

Idaho, I believe is $169 and requires a falconry permit from the home state.

Currently, in Washington, there is no fee. There is a plan to put one in place, but it hasnt been done yet.

Tom Smith
12-28-2011, 03:44 PM
Why don't we do a cross reference of sorts here, post your state non-resident fee here and we can get an idea of how they look.

Idaho, I believe is $169 and requires a falconry permit from the home state.

I was speaking specifically of a non-resident BOP capture permit fee from your state in case there is any confusion. I'm hoping we can get all the states that allow a non-resident capture permit.

JRedig
12-28-2011, 03:49 PM
Sent.

falcorusticolus
12-31-2011, 02:29 AM
Found this article in a Montana newspaper online today regarding the non-resident take issue. Some interesting quotes from a Montana falconer who is especially concerned about the non-resident harvest negatively affecting gyrfalcon populations. Unbelievable. You can read it here:

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/wildlife/Content?oid=1525210

Peregrinus
12-31-2011, 03:42 AM
Found this article in a Montana newspaper online today regarding the non-resident take issue. Some interesting quotes from a Montana falconer who is especially concerned about the non-resident harvest negatively affecting gyrfalcon populations. Unbelievable. You can read it here:

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/wildlife/Content?oid=1525210

Wow. What's unbelievable to me is not that someone would hold such an asinine opinion, but that she would state it publicly.

goshawks00
12-31-2011, 07:25 AM
Yes that wasn't very nice of her was it!!

And now I can see a bit clearer why the fees are so high... seems like the guy commenting in favor of the non resident take is as it states... the FWP Commercial Wildlife Permit Manager.

PeteJ
12-31-2011, 09:02 AM
Pretty sad. Again with the Gyrfalcons thing. Maybe she should get a clue that Gyrfalcons do not nest in Montana and therefore, the real issue is with where they breed that controls their numbers, not where they winter. Again, she is thinking about them as 'her' Gyrfalcons, which of course they are not hers, or Montanas. If she was seriously concerned about them I hope she is fighting energy development and land use with every ounce of strength she has to ensure that there are wintering grounds with GAME for Gyrfalcons to survive on.

Montucky
12-31-2011, 10:15 AM
Found this article in a Montana newspaper online today regarding the non-resident take issue. Some interesting quotes from a Montana falconer who is especially concerned about the non-resident harvest negatively affecting gyrfalcon populations. Unbelievable. You can read it here:

http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/wildlife/Content?oid=1525210

well at least the MFWP guy was quoted as saying the effect of take will be "insignificant" . another example of how the agencies are not the problem...it is the falconer.toungeout

too bad she was the one interviewed...there are so many others. she is more in the public eye as she has a raptor education organization and does that full time. The "Missoulian" paper has done stories about her in the past, so my guess the "Independant" googled "montana falconer" and probably got a hit on her - then called her. My impression while living nearby was that she was not a particularly serious or experienced (hawking) falconer. And keep in mind that she is one of the few falconers in the Missoula area and I am sure they wanted to interview someone local. The area is a terrible falconry location. this is just poor journalism (not calling formal club representatives etc.) and not representative of the serious falconry community in Montana.

Montucky
12-31-2011, 10:27 AM
her comments in that article will prompt A LOT of comments to the MFWP against the non-res proposal from the birding community and the countless numbers of teachers and students that have attended her raptor programs.

BestBeagler
12-31-2011, 10:52 AM
Sometimes itís best not to know the specifics on a topic. This for me is one of those times. I would have been much happier if I just would have known they were very close to opening up a take for non residents and not questioned the fee. Instead I am finding the same BS that goes on in almost every decision that is made in falconry and it just ticks me off. Iím not going to change anyoneís opinion. Andrew Carnegie once told a story about a friend of his that was having a discussion with someone else and they were arguing back and forth and the his friend finally one the point in question and he turned to Mr. Carnegie and said something to the effect, ďI won the argument didnít I?Ē and Mr. Carnegie replied, ďYes you did, you one the argument, but you made an enemy for life.Ē I feel that story has an important moral to remember.

passagejack
12-31-2011, 10:56 AM
From what I've seen of Kates oppinions in the past this doesn't surprise me. The term "master" has never been so over used. She should get up to speed with (facts) not ignorant oppinions. My hope is that she will be enlightened soon lol!
Good on Paul to have set the record straightclapp. Steve Schwartze's comments made earlier on a different thread about passage gyrs trapped in Mexico should be the real concern here!;)

PeteJ
12-31-2011, 11:49 AM
her comments in that article will prompt A LOT of comments to the MFWP against the non-res proposal from the birding community and the countless numbers of teachers and students that have attended her raptor programs.
In other words...she makes a living (gets paid) to enslave birds for her shows...hint hint.

JRedig
12-31-2011, 12:02 PM
"only four gyr's have been sighted..."

What the hell is wrong with people...do they really think they have that good of coverage to know how many come through? Unbelievable.frus)

Ally...you should give them a call!

Peregrinus
12-31-2011, 04:09 PM
In other words...she makes a living (gets paid) to enslave birds for her shows...hint hint.

Illustrating yet again that those who most want to present falconry to the public are generally the least qualified to do so.

falcon56
12-31-2011, 09:32 PM
Wish there was someway I could forward all these comments to her, might make her think twice about offering up her idiotic comments in the future.

Dirthawking
12-31-2011, 09:37 PM
all you have to do is copy the thread link and send it to her in an email

FredFogg
12-31-2011, 09:55 PM
I find it amusing that on some threads, when someone comments about certain people not on NAFEX, they are told to stop as that person isn't here to defend themselves, but when it is someone that nobody on here really knows, let the bashing begin! LOL frus) toungeout :D

Dirthawking
12-31-2011, 10:05 PM
that is why I said to email her. Maybe she will come on here.

goshawks00
12-31-2011, 10:58 PM
I find it amusing that on some threads, when someone comments about certain people not on NAFEX, they are told to stop as that person isn't here to defend themselves, but when it is someone that nobody on here really knows, let the bashing begin! LOL frus) toungeout :D

beeer
Had the same thought..

frootdog
01-01-2012, 02:20 PM
I find it amusing that on some threads, when someone comments about certain people not on NAFEX, they are told to stop as that person isn't here to defend themselves, but when it is someone that nobody on here really knows, let the bashing begin! LOL frus) toungeout :D

amennn Fact is fact.

goshawkr
01-02-2012, 01:51 PM
Wow. What's unbelievable to me is not that someone would hold such an asinine opinion, but that she would state it publicly.

Well, I am certain that she dosnt think her opinion is asinine, and the interviewing reporter certainly sees her as an authority on the subject. Just because we are "enlightened" enough to know that she is a blibbering idiot dosnt mean everyone else will realize that. :D

Tom Smith
01-02-2012, 02:25 PM
Often even we the "enlightened" also can't see through the veil of dazzling BS from those we hold in high esteem, it seems.

goshawkr
01-02-2012, 03:40 PM
I find it amusing that on some threads, when someone comments about certain people not on NAFEX, they are told to stop as that person isn't here to defend themselves, but when it is someone that nobody on here really knows, let the bashing begin! LOL frus) toungeout :D

ya, that is rather interesting.

I would be inclined to say that in this case its because she was being a public figure, speaking in the press. But that isnt consistent either.

I have had my posts edited to remove names when I was being critical of a former prominent leader of NAFA, but he was a public figure, and what I was refering to were things he wrote in the hawk chalks or publicly stated at the meets.

Its certainly an inconsistently applied policy. Its also policy I completely disagree with - as it applies to those who are being public figures.

goshawkr
01-02-2012, 03:41 PM
Often even we the "enlightened" also can't see through the veil of dazzling BS from those we hold in high esteem, it seems.

aint that the damn truth!

goshawkr
01-02-2012, 04:02 PM
"only four gyr's have been sighted..."

What the hell is wrong with people...do they really think they have that good of coverage to know how many come through? Unbelievable.frus)

Ally...you should give them a call!

Its also very interesting to note that not only are these 4 gyrs mentioned NOT the entire population wintering in MT, but the current thinking among gyr biologist is that very few of the gyrs which winter in any of the contiental US states survive to breed. The really fit ones wont be pushed this far south.

falcon56
01-03-2012, 10:34 AM
With hopes that this doesn't turn sour again, I would like to thank all those that took the time to comment favorably to this issue. We are experiencing some heavy anti action within the state right now, so who knows where it will lead.

Tom Smith
01-03-2012, 10:49 AM
With hopes that this doesn't turn sour again, I would like to thank all those that took the time to comment favorably to this issue. We are experiencing some heavy anti action within the state right now, so who knows where it will lead.

I hope it doesn't result in the loss of resident take as well.

passagejack
01-03-2012, 10:59 AM
Ray I hope all works out well for you guys! I feel that the deal that everyone involved came up with is more then fair! $200 for a passage bird is small beans in the grand scheme of things. Hell I spent that much last week looking for 1 slip:eek:. I know its the cost of the trip that most think of as well. BUT even if the trip cost $1000 I highly doubt that the additional $200 would be the difference that breaks the bank? It could be a great experiance for some.

goshawks00
01-03-2012, 11:06 AM
I hope it doesn't result in the loss of resident take as well.

Hmm.,,, wouldn't that be ironic. I hope to turn out in falconry's favor.

Tom Smith
01-03-2012, 04:08 PM
I hope it doesn't result in the loss of resident take as well.

I was thinking that if the anti's are upset over the potential of giving 3 birds to non residents then what do they think about the resident take which is a greater number. The backlash could be that it will be captive bred birds for everyone. I wonder if Kate Davis (is it) takes birds from the wild and also puts that activity in jeopardy with her remarks.

By the way I wrote in favoring the nonresident take when it first came up here. I'm wondering now if a second comment would be acceptable

Yeomanfalconer
01-03-2012, 04:49 PM
Its also very interesting to note that not only are these 4 gyrs mentioned NOT the entire population wintering in MT, but the current thinking among gyr biologist is that very few of the gyrs which winter in any of the contiental US states survive to breed. The really fit ones wont be pushed this far south.
...and most of the gyrs I see, in this part of Idaho anyway, seem to be sub-adults. That, my friends, is a falcon that will not only survive and return, but will take it's place in the breeding population when there is a void to fill.

Should these be released if captured, in Montana or elsewhere ? I am inclined to think so, purely from a difficult, stubbornness factor. One might conclude that here would be a potential falconry candidate of tremendous power and skill. Then again she might just have some bad habits which enabled her to survive, making her frustrating to a fly. Would keeping one affect the wild populations ? Doubtful.

falcon56
01-03-2012, 05:44 PM
I was thinking that if the anti's are upset over the potential of giving 3 birds to non residents then what do they think about the resident take which is a greater number. The backlash could be that it will be captive bred birds for everyone. I wonder if Kate Davis (is it) takes birds from the wild and also puts that activity in jeopardy with her remarks.

By the way I wrote in favoring the nonresident take when it first came up here. I'm wondering now if a second comment would be acceptable

Truthfully Tom, I can't remember any 1 year that 3 gyrs were trapped and kept LONG TERM by Mt. falconers. I can think of maybe 5 intermewed pass. gyrs currently being flown, a couple of them being over 4 years old. Out side of JJ Macs shenanigans, and who really knows what he is doing at any time, there just aren't that many Mt. residents trapping and keeping gyrs.

schwartze
01-03-2012, 06:35 PM
Steve Schwartze's comments made earlier on a different thread about passage gyrs trapped in Mexico should be the real concern here!;)

Hey Jeremy,

Until you've looked for gyrs in Mexico, you really can't say that they are not there! And don't forget, it's gyrkins mostly...

Ya dork!

Steve

Tom Smith
01-03-2012, 10:11 PM
Truthfully Tom, I can't remember any 1 year that 3 gyrs were trapped and kept LONG TERM by Mt. falconers. I can think of maybe 5 intermewed pass. gyrs currently being flown, a couple of them being over 4 years old. Out side of JJ Macs shenanigans, and who really knows what he is doing at any time, there just aren't that many Mt. residents trapping and keeping gyrs.

Well then, Ray, it would seem there is some concern that a three bird limit for non-residents is above what you guys take anyway. I don't think I made mention of gyrs in my comment, I was speaking about all the allowed species. To some protectionists it doesn't matter if it is a kestrel or a gyrfalcon, nor the the biological sound harvest numbers of a renewable resource, it is the idea of some one, any one taking them for any reason non -resident or not. Potentially with the adverse publicity you have now that ball is beginning to roll.

Remember I'm on your side.

passagejack
01-04-2012, 12:46 PM
Hey Jeremy,

Until you've looked for gyrs in Mexico, you really can't say that they are not there! And don't forget, it's gyrkins mostly...

Ya dork!

Steve
I agree with all 3 of your points!;) My mexico permits for a passage Jerkin are in the mail and.............YES I am a dork! Please dont forget this!