Private Property issues with Raptors

[jfseaman]

Does anyone know him?

[PeteJ]

Found this on google (which you might have already seen). He was a PhD student under Jim Grier up in Minnesota I think it was. Here's what the guy you wanted to know did under Jim.
# Jeremy E. Guinn (2004) -- bald eagle nesting habitat and human presence in Minnesota -- on faculty at Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, ND

[jfseaman]

Found this on google (which you might have already seen). He was a PhD student under Jim Grier up in Minnesota I think it was. Here's what the guy you wanted to know did under Jim.
# Jeremy E. Guinn (2004) -- bald eagle nesting habitat and human presence in Minnesota -- on faculty at Sitting Bull College, Fort Yates, ND

Thanks Pete. I found that.

I want more details like if anyone knows him.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Fred:
After reading the article by Dr. Guinn in the latest NAFA journal, on Feb. 19th I sent him a private message in which I pointed out a couple of glitches. One of those glitches was where in his discussion under point #1, he mentioned and quote, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the pubic sector."

I gave a lengthy explanation of what transpired during the 'private property' controversy and ended with copying the email message from Dr. George Allen to NAFA president Dan Cecchini in which USF&WS biologist Dr. Allen set the record straight, that raptors possessed by falconers are the private property of said falconers.

Dr, Guinn sent a reply on Feb. 21st but mentioned he was surprised and confused by Dr. Allen's comments. On Feb. 27th I sent a response with further clarification but apparently I was less than sensitive in the manner in which I responded as I have not heard back from him.

I have been tempted to ask if he would be sending in a correction to be published in the next Hawk Chalk but have simply dropped the issue. I have also been tempted to call attention to his mistake to the leadership of the Am. Falconry Conservancy as continuing to spread disinformation, even thought is was likely unintentional, could be confusing to many and then quoted as if factual..

Richard F. Hoyer

[jfseaman]

Fred:
After reading the article by Dr. Guinn in the latest NAFA journal, on Feb. 19th I sent him a private message in which I pointed out a couple of glitches. One of those glitches was where in his discussion under point #1, he mentioned and quote, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the pubic sector."

I gave a lengthy explanation of what transpired during the 'private property' controversy and ended with copying the email message from Dr. George Allen to NAFA president Dan Cecchini in which USF&WS biologist Dr. Allen set the record straight, that raptors possessed by falconers are the private property of said falconers.

Dr, Guinn sent a reply on Feb. 21st but mentioned he was surprised and confused by Dr. Allen's comments. On Feb. 27th I sent a response with further clarification but apparently I was less than sensitive in the manner in which I responded as I have not heard back from him.

I have been tempted to ask if he would be sending in a correction to be published in the next Hawk Chalk but have simply dropped the issue. I have also been tempted to call attention to his mistake to the leadership of the Am. Falconry Conservancy as continuing to spread disinformation, even thought is was likely unintentional, could be confusing to many and then quoted as if factual..

Richard F. Hoyer

Thank you Richard.

This is precisely why I asked who he is.

Do you know if he is a licensed falconer?

[jfseaman]

He's a NAFA member.

Now all I need, is he a falconer?

Thank you for the look up function Fred Fogg.

[steve watson]

George knows the laws and was correct concering the private property issue. There is no issue of being for or against it. It is the law and has been since the founding of our country. This is one more example of the misguided and uninformed half baked opinions handed out to the unkowning nafa members.
Once again the Board through the news letter, is attempting to lead the falconers of the US down a road no one can go. What a crock! You would think that if an author writes on a national level, they would at least do their home work before they printed worthless content. The author should retract the statement because he has no idea what he is talking about and never bothered to look up the history of private property and wildlife dead or alive. About normal for a nafa author. This is just more proof that the nafa news letter is only good for one use. Just remember that the pages are kind of stiff and will scratch your back side if you fold them before use.

Steve Watson, Ca.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Jack:
This same topic surfaced on our Oregon Falconry Web site where someone suggested that when Oregon adopts new falconry regulations, we should incorporate the position that we own our raptors. I then responded with what you see below.

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. I give my permission to copy all or parts of this post and sent to anyone you wish. RFH

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++

Concerning the issue of falconry birds being recognized as private property, that issue was addressed back in 2008. In a post I sent on the OFA website on 10/3/08, I included a copy of an e-mail message from USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen to then NAFA president Dan Cecchini. Below is a copy of Dr. Allen's message.

I have taken the liberty of extracting key parts of Dr. Allen's message as follows: (In the second sentence, 'MBTA' stands for 'Migratory Bird Treaty Act')
"I should not have put the statement in the proposed propagation regulations stating the birds held under the permit are not private property,---."
"MBTA falconry and propagation raptors are private property,---."
"In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property."

Early in my efforts to ascertain the facts dealing with the 'private property' controversy within NAFA and the falconry community at large, I contacted individuals I knew in state wildlife agencies. One of those I contacted was ODFW biologist Larry Cooper who is the Deputy Administrator of the Wildlife Division. Larry didn't get back to me until Nov.4, 2008, about a month after enough facts had been revealed to have pretty much settled the issue. So I never bothered to repeat the input Larry Cooper sent me.

The following is part of my original inquiry and Larry's response that pacifistically pertained to falconry birds.
Richard Hoyer: "When a falconer traps a Cooper's Hawk, maintains and hunts with it, according to Oregon and federal statutes, does the falconer or state (or federal govt.) own the hawk?"

Larry Cooper: "In the situation where a licensed falconer traps a permitted raptor species, according to Oregon statutes, the falconer “owns” the falcon or hawk. Similarly, the state does regulate the conditions under which the bird(s) can be held and released."

I hope the above information will satisfy any misgivings anyone may have about the 'private property' issue.

For those that are NAFA members, in the latest NAFA journal is an article authored by Dr. Jeremy Guinn. On page 31, second paragraph, Dr. Guinn states, "Our wild-taken hawks remain property of the public sector." On Feb. 19th, I contacted Dr. Guinn and pointed out that particular glitch. I do not know if he will choose to make a correction by contacting the NAFA editors.

Richard F. Hoyer

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: George_T_Allen@fws.gov
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:51:29 -0400

Hi Dan:

I'd also like to try to clarify an ongoing issue involving possession of falconry birds. I should not have put the statement in the proposed propagation regulations stating the birds held under the permit are not private property, and long ago took I it out of the version of the propagation regulations that will address comments and make final changes to the regulations.

MBTA falconry and propagation raptors are private property, but their possession still has more constraints on it than does possession of most private property. I believe that some folks have taken my correction about the private property statement to mean there are now no constraints on the possession of falconry and propagation raptors. That is not correct. The rights and responsibilities of a permittee under the MBTA or the BGEPA are unchanged. Possession of raptors for falconry or propagation is still subject to the same constraints that have always been in place. A permittee must comply with his or her permit conditions, and he or she may not undertake activities or actions not allowed by the permit.

No falconry bird or propagation bird of a species listed in 50 CFR 10.13 is exempt from the MBTA or MBTA regs. For example, because hybrids are defined as MBTA birds, they are covered. Captive-bred birds of MBTA species are still covered under the MBTA. Raptors taken from the wild for falconry still may not be bought or sold. In the future, falconry birds and falconers' facilities and records will still be subject to inspection.

In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property. However, that does not mean that anything else is changed. As I told someone else, I think that some people are failing to distinguish between "private property" and "exempt from the MBTA." I have said that raptors held under falconry permits are private property. However, both wild-caught and captive-bred MBTA raptors are still protected under the Act.

If you or others have additional questions on this point, please let me know.

Regards,

George

[jfseaman]

Thanks again Richard.

I to thought this issue was settled.

What I'm curious of is whether this is a plant by Mr. Quinn to resurrect this position in an ostensibly 'peer reviewed' publication.

It is my belief that this is serious, it has been weighing on me since I received my copy of 'The Journal'.

[Saluqi]

Hi Fred,

The NAFA journal is not a peer reviewed publication. There is no technical, legal, or scientific board that reviews the Journal. It's a place for members to share their experience, stories, history, and ideas about the sport.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

The NAFA journal is not a peer reviewed publication. There is no technical, legal, or scientific board that reviews the Journal. It's a place for members to share their experience, stories, history, and ideas about the sport.

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

[Lowachi]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

Just ask Jon. here or on a p/m... jmo

[PeteJ]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

LOL @ Weight (Piled higher deeper=Ph.D.)

[Saluqi]

Hi Paul,

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

So did this just slip in as one falconers opinion?

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.

[jfseaman]

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.

That is very possible.

I know your position, you know mine.

Get a straight answer from Larry. I tried and didn't.

[PeteJ]

Carry weight, really? Even if his PhD is in some unrelated field like English or engineering? If he was writing about raptor diseases and had a DVM next to his name then I would assume he has credentials, but the title of PhD reflects more on this guy's opinion of himself and nothing more.

I think your reading too much into this.

I would say that his Ph.D is likely in biology, ornithology or zoology based on his field work citation. And, as you say, often such credentials are thrown around a little like Master falconer is, or the type of car one drives. But, in this case I believe it was thrown around to give credit to what he was saying.
I do sort of get the impression that even though the article was published recently, it perhaps had been in the works for a longer period of time, perhaps from before G. Allen said what he said about private property. Also, to be fair, there are many falconers out there that are pretty much keeping to themselves and definitely not on the forums, and therefore out of the loop of updated information as we recently saw on a thread about year round trapping associated with the new regs in some states! It is tough to keep on top of things unless it really is important to you. I know very competent falconers that are often clueless as to what the regs say or mean, and I have had many conflicts with some falconers that just aren't paying close enough attention and also passing along their disinformation to their apprentices and acquaintances who might respect their position. You can really get yourself into a jam if you aren't careful.
But, while the Journal is not particularly 'peer reviewed' as Paul pointed out, I would hope that the editor would have caught this error and pointed it out to the author before publication, or perhaps the editor could have put an editor's note in the article to indicate that this particular issue was already cleared up somewhat by George Allen. I have seen articles in the Journal over the years that had some editor notes within them to update something that might have recently changed from the information presented in the article.
I agree a little with Fred on this though that it gives the impression of a throwback to earlier thinking within the NAFA community when it should be moving forward rather than getting bogged down with out-dated thinking.

[NMHighPlains]

We know that but Mr. Quinn is a Ph.D. and as such, his writings carry weight beyond his wisdom.

Only if you let it.

Jim Weaver doesn't have a PhD. 'nuff said.

[jfseaman]

I was watching 'Sons of Guns' and I realized that commercialized harvest of resources is in complete contradiction to the 'Public Trust' religion of some falconers.

Non-ownership codified in regulations is purely and simply a way to manipulate falconers who's desire exceeds common sense. We are compelled to practice falconry and raptor husbandry. Signing a 'form' that throws away our 4th Amendment rights seems a small price to some but not to me.

Those of us with 'moral and philosophical' views of ownership actually encourage Law Enforcement and Regulators to desire more regulation, as they (and I if uneducated on falconry) would think that those falconers who don't want it are trying to hide something.

[Black Gold]

In life it is hard to give up control of anything.

I do not think the States or Feds are going to ever allow sale of wild taken Raptors that have been taken out of the wild gene pool, even though some States sell permits for a wild take. Our State (WA) does not want to see progeny sold from wild taken birds and States like Alaska make the breeder at least breed to F2 to be able to "Commercialize" from the young.

So, I think the wild take is here to stay regardless what some Falconers think. There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.

Certainly you can not sell a Duck or Fish you shoot or catch, but what about trophy Deer mounts? I see a lot of furniture being made from Deer and Elk horns and I am sure they are not all coming from "Captive Bred Deer and Elk? The Feds and State have in place regulations and control of the wild Wildlife.

Where do we separate wild Raptors from ones that have been bred Captive bred for generations?

Managing Nature by emotions and not sound understanding is never going to work for us or the benefit of Nature. There is a fine line making a stance in whatever direction you take on this Topic of Private ownership. On the far left you are going to look like you should get rid of Raptors and think about taking up Buddhism and harm nothing in the World and siding with law enforcement to harass Falconers. On the far right it is going to look like you just want to Rape Nature and take and destroy all it has to offer.

As Falconers we might be better off taking the Middle Ground as we fall into both categories!

[STait]

Very well said Brian.

[PeteJ]

I would agree somewhat with Brian on his stance, which is why I said earlier that just because they gave it to us does not mean that we have to change how we feel about the birds at all! It is merely a recognition by the feds that, we pay for a permit, part of that permit allows us to take something, from that point on we invest time and money, it is only natural that anyone would consider that it belongs to us.
To give an extreme example, let's say you are out flying a bird (captive produced, wild taken, intermewed, whatever) and a hunter shoots it right in front you. Is your first reaction to go over there say "You just shot a raptor which is covered by the MBTA, owned by the public, blah blah blah"? Or do you go over and say "YOU $#&%*@, you just shot MY bird and a world of law enforcement is about to rain down upon your ignorant rump! Get ready for shock and awe!" It is only natural for you to feel the latter. Someone, from the public, just took from you, permanently. Now, are we supposed to say "That's okay, you're the public and you're just as entitled to that bird as I am?" Not exactly, he may (or may not) have a hunting license, but for sure there is no legal definition of 'take' with a firearm of raptors..yours or the wild ones.
So, is it wrong for you to want to get restitution for the loss of your time and expenses for something that was taken from you? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that the courts will feel the same way....as a matter of fact I'm positive they would because I have a friend whose bird got shot by a hunter and caught in the act, and one of the stipulations by the court was monetary damages for the cost of the bird, plus its potential as a breeding bird (what it might have been able to produce conservatively), not to mention the fines for the unlawful act (took his truck, gun, etc.). So, as far as the court was concerned, the bird had value as property of the falconer and as a member of a protected (MBTA) species.
I really don't think we need or should try to define this level of ownership too much in depth. I think it is enough to know that, for legal reasons, we have ownership. For me, every little bit helps to lay a foundation to protect our ability to continue practicing falconry while at the same time keeping those that want to destroy us at arm's length indefinitely. So I'll take private ownership, cultural heritage, right to hunt, whatever they want to give us to protect ourselves and our art for future generations of falconers and others that appreciate raptors for what they are.

[FredFogg]

There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.

I wonder what the ratio is of falconers that fly captive bred birds versus wild caught birds? I know there will be less wild caught birds now that some states are letting apprentices fly whatever they want. But personally, I will always have a wild caught raptor in my mews. Some of us are too poor to go out and buy a new raptor every few years. And with the availablility of all the great raptors we have here in the U.S., why wouldn't anyone take advantage of them? I know I sure will. Brian, you breed beautiful birds, but they are way out of my price range.

[Black Gold]

I wonder what the ratio is of falconers that fly captive bred birds versus wild caught birds? I know there will be less wild caught birds now that some states are letting apprentices fly whatever they want. But personally, I will always have a wild caught raptor in my mews. Some of us are too poor to go out and buy a new raptor every few years. And with the availablility of all the great raptors we have here in the U.S., why wouldn't anyone take advantage of them? I know I sure will. Brian, you breed beautiful birds, but they are way out of my price range.

Fred,

What do you mean? I gave away a started Gyrkin to a friend for a few hoods a couple of months ago. Sold some producing Peregrines this Fall to two different parties for a penny on the Dollar and gave a Tiercel Peale's to a Falconer friend here in Spokane. Its not always about money, as I hate to see anyone that does not have the cash that is my friend not be able to get a bird to fly.

The American market is way down and there should be many breeders here with reasonable priced birds this season. I think the demand is way lower then the amount of birds that will be produced this season?

Wild birds are great and have enjoyed flying them. If I did not breed Falcons I would for sure fly passage Prairie's, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrines when and if I could get a permit.

[FredFogg]

Fred,

What do you mean? I gave away a started Gyrkin to a friend for a few hoods a couple of months ago. Sold some producing Peregrines this Fall to two different parties for a penny on the Dollar and gave a Tiercel Peale's to a Falconer friend here in Spokane. Its not always about money, as I hate to see anyone that does not have the cash that is my friend not be able to get a bird to fly.

The American market is way down and there should be many breeders here with reasonable priced birds this season. I think the demand is way lower then the amount of birds that will be produced this season?

Wild birds are great and have enjoyed flying them. If I did not breed Falcons I would for sure fly passage Prairie's, Gyrfalcons, and Peregrines when and if I could get a permit.

That's all and good Brian, but that still doesn't change the fact that I can't afford to buy one of your birds, nor anyone elses. I am not pointing you out in particular, just the fact that a lot of folks can't afford to drop $300 to (put whatever you want in here). And with wild take available, why would I want to buy a bird when what we have here does the job just as well as a captive bred one. Sure, I would love to fly a spar someday, but until the screwed up laws we have getting them in here so folks can produce them and not charge so much get changed, I will just stick to the accipiters we have. Now if you want to produce me a female pere/saker that I have been wanting for a long time and sell it to me at that penny on the dollar thing, I could be persuaded to start buying birds! LOL

[hawking]

Something to think about from a Canadian point of view. As a falconer in Ontario, I am spoiled, I can own pretty much any raptor with falconry potential, from Bald Eagles to Snowy Owls, we are spoiled. Our right to hunt with Non indigenous birds is also protected in our falconry laws. I can own as many or few as I desire.

However,

I can't go and trap a bird to hunt with for the season. Despite a large and healthy population of most Birds of Prey, we have no right too use wild birds. Permanently releasing any of my captive bred birds without government permission is a crime.

A Redtail sells for $1200 to $1800 CAD. For $10,000 you can fly pretty much any bird you wish. Eagle to Kestrel, no problems if you have the cash.

Unfortunately, this system is leading to many problems. For one we don't have the pleasure of letting them go and enjoying the process all over again next season. Because they are so expensive, they become a long term commitment, like it or not.

Yes this has it's up side, like drumming the less serious out but also it's down side, because of the monetary value, more birds sit in the mews when the owners life interferes with sport. Less face it, life changes, and one of the great things about wild caught is that you can return them if the need arises, the other option for our privately owned birds is to put them into a "breeding program". Rest assured we are headed for the same problems the UK now faces.

On top of that, money, a falconer does not make. Truth be told, I would have to hang up my glove, if it was not for my VERY loving and patient wife, who allows me to spend so much money on my obsession. The fact of the matter is, I actually could not afford this lifestyle without the sacrifices my wife makes for me. Even as I right this, I ponder my falconry future. I have over $10,000 sitting in my mews and I would consider my team relatively basic. I am not sure I can continue to justify the expense but the day I hang up my glove for the sake of $$$$ will be the day I hang my head in shame.

All the best.

[wyodjm]

In life it is hard to give up control of anything.
So, I think the wild take is here to stay regardless what some Falconers think.

There is just not a large demand for wild Raptors by Falconers here in the US.

Hi Brian:

I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with your above statements.

[Yeomanfalconer]

Those of us with 'moral and philosophical' views of ownership actually encourage Law Enforcement and Regulators to desire more regulation, as they (and I if uneducated on falconry) would think that those falconers who don't want it are trying to hide something.

I don't know if my position on this subject is moral or not, philosophical, yes. To be quite honest, I can live with either alternative. I have more pressing issues of morality to deal with than whether I own my falcons or someone else. An analogy that boils it down, is why I live in Idaho, with it's abundant public land, as opposed to Texas, etc. where the BLM is a non issue. Some people just feel more secure with the concept of something, be it wildlife or land, that belongs, and can be capitalized upon, to an individual. Personally, I will trade the fact that I can trespass on this land any time I damn well please, compared to paying someone to let me out there for possibly more game. There is also freedom in non ownership. I have nothing to hide by letting F & G officials to come in through my back gate. I used to, once upon a time when I was up to other stuff. Now, all I worry about is what others may think of my "wildlife sanctuary" of a yard. Not quite what the rest of the world considers a sane living space. Property values be damned.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Tom:
The courts have long held that lawfully taken (killed) wildlife belongs to the individual. States have attached their own particular restrictions such that game species or parts thereof, cannot be sold or bartered. On the other hand, that does not apply to some species of lawfully taken wildlife such as fur bearers. In the case of native birds, the Migratory Bird Treat Act also involves the federal government and similar restrictions pertain to lawfully killed waterfowl, grouse, etc.

But what some individuals do not realize is that the courts have long held that lawfully taken LIVE wildlife also becomes converted to private ownership. For many decades, Florida and Louisiana have had commercial take of many species of amphibians and reptiles which thus such live wildlife can be sold and bartered. It all depends on the specific regulations of the individuals states.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Montucky]

I don't know if my position on this subject is moral or not, philosophical, yes. To be quite honest, I can live with either alternative. I have more pressing issues of morality to deal with than whether I own my falcons or someone else. An analogy that boils it down, is why I live in Idaho, with it's abundant public land, as opposed to Texas, etc. where the BLM is a non issue. Some people just feel more secure with the concept of something, be it wildlife or land, that belongs, and can be capitalized upon, to an individual. Personally, I will trade the fact that I can trespass on this land any time I damn well please, compared to paying someone to let me out there for possibly more game. There is also freedom in non ownership. I have nothing to hide by letting F & G officials to come in through my back gate. I used to, once upon a time when I was up to other stuff. Now, all I worry about is what others may think of my "wildlife sanctuary" of a yard. Not quite what the rest of the world considers a sane living space. Property values be damned.

and i would encourage folks to consider the moral and philosophical basis for our consitution and various admendments and Acts that are the pillars of our system. Although it is constantly being eroded, our wildlife model and associated regulations stem from american beliefs about land and resources that is in stark contrast to England, Europe, and others, were policies are built around a philosophy of commodity value and belief in restricted access to privaleged few. We havnt got it all right for sure...and public land mangement agencies dont do a good job stewarding the resource many times...but such failures always stem from the influence of commercial interests on our political system that have a TOTALLY different philisophical platform...that land and wildlife is to be used as a commodity for their benefit - winner takes all. Being able to sell captive bred birds to other permited falconers is a very unique asterisk to the broader framework of wildlife law. Maybe ownership it is not a threat in the long run, by I would bet that by formalizing ownership/property for native birds of prey....the ability of wildlife agencies to define the sideboards of what falconers can and cannot do with said property will be eroded in court battles to allow anyone to use these birds how they see fit for their commercial gain in step with other wildlife "farming" that is regulated instead by agricultural law....this is a HUGE shift and completely about the moral and philisophical underpinnings of how we value the resource. In agriculture wanton waste and destruction is fine. In agriculture, the operators interests gain precident over the resource interests. Etc.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

John:
It is my view that in 2007- 2008, Dick Musser (and those that supported his position), believed that the recognition of falconry birds as private property was a totally new development, that it was challenging and changing the status quo. However, that was not the case as in reality, falconry birds had been private property all along

Private ownership had been established law at least since (and probably before) the federal government became involved with regulating falconry in the 1970's. I believe the issue of migratory birds being recognized as private property may have been established in pivotal court decisions involving captive pen-reared ducks that had some of their linage with Mallards.

And since private property of falconry birds had been establish law for a considerable length of time, any 'unintended consequences' would have taken place long ago. The notion of threats or 'unintended consequences' to falconry by having falconry birds recognized as private property was promoted by Dick Musser in the 2007 - 2008 era. Such a position was simply a product of his fertile imagination supported by his misunderstanding / misinterpretation of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The pubic trust in wildlife only pertains to free roaming wildlife. As a matter of fact, I believe the courts have indicated no one, not even the government, really own wildlife that is in fact free. Ownership only comes when possession occurs. I believe the courts thus held that all free roaming wildlife is held in trust for the pubic and the government act as custodians of said wildlife until such time lawful possession occurs. Now I am paraphrasing what I have read so one would need to look up the exact language of the court precedents or legal opinions.

As a matter of fact, if you go back and read my lengthy explanation of what transpired during 2008, you will note Dick Musser made a number of other imagined outcomes that would
transpire if falconry birds were recognized as private property. And of course, all of his imagined concerns have not become reality. Clearly he believed that such recognition was something new and was not already established legal precedence.

The controversy actually began fairly recently when USF&WS biologist Dr. George Allen drafted new regulation pertaining to the captive propagation of raptors and inserted language that indicated captive bred raptors remained property of the government. That aspect of his draft regulations was contrary to the understanding of some WRTC members and thus was challenged by that organization through their attorney William Horn.

Dr. Allen subsequently changed his draft to conform with long establish legal precedence, that is, lawfully acquired raptors are private property. If you go back and read his message to Dan Cecchini (which I copied in a prior posts), you will note where Dr. Allen mentions, "In short, I've been corrected - and we won't say falconry raptors are not private property."

And form my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a
scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets.

I pointed this out to Dick Musser and others that were in support his position. I asked why were they supporting the very same goals being advocated by some anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations? If my memory serves me correctly, there was only silence.

I offer the above as something to consider in evaluating your current position.

Richard F. Hoyer

P.S. I see I have copied links as attachments of the 2007 letter by attorney William Horn to the Solicitor General (attorney) for the Dept. of Interior. That letter is a thorough review of legal precedents and Mr. Horn's arguments pertaining to the issue of private property of live wildlife. I found I can't copy that letter but can send it as an attachment. If you or other wish to have me send that attachment, I can be reached at charinabottae@eathlink.net RFH

[PeteJ]

Richard wrote:
"And from my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a
scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets."
Exactly, and this is why I say, take what they have given, it's a gift, protect your interest in the birds while having the protection of the wild birds at the same time. Win win situation. Thanks Richard for doing the legwork and also pointing out the conflict in processing the value of the decision such as the above.

[Montucky]

John:

The pubic trust in wildlife only pertains to free roaming wildlife. As a matter of fact, I believe the courts have indicated no one, not even the government, really own wildlife that is in fact free. Ownership only comes when possession occurs. I believe the courts thus held that all free roaming wildlife is held in trust for the pubic and the government act as custodians of said wildlife until such time lawful possession occurs. Now I am paraphrasing what I have read so one would need to look up the exact language of the court precedents or legal opinions.


And form my point of view, the true danger of 'unintended consequence' lies in the exact opposite direction. During my 5 + months search for the facts surrounding the 'private property' issue, I found two factions that are trying to apply the 'Pubic Trust Doctrine' (that primarily pertains to public lands), to all wildlife so that all wildlife remains public property indefinitely regardless of possession. I found some Animal-rights and Anti-hunting organizations were pushing for perpetual governmental ownership of wildlife as such a scenario would allow them to be in a better position to push legislation at the statelevel that would limit, restrict, and eventually eliminate hunting and the rights of individuals to own pets.

I pointed this out to Dick Musser and others that were in support his position. I asked why were they supporting the very same goals being advocated by some anti-hunting and animal-rights organizations? If my memory serves me correctly, there was only silence.

I offer the above as something to consider in evaluating your current position.

Richard F. Hoyer

I understand you have looked into this subject with serious interest, however it seems that you are still just making your interpretation based on your beliefs and representing it as a concluded fact. Yes gov does not "own" wildlife but are entrusted to steward for the public....we all own the resource. The public trust issue and the associated wildlife laws do not support a concept that only free-roaming wildlife are under its sphere - but rather all "wildlife". Clearly, one of the cornerstones is preventing commercial wildlife markets...all which have to do with what happens after wildlife is harvested and in possession by a private individual. In order to argue private property under this framework farmed elk were no longer defined as "wildlife" but "domestic livestock". This has been a growing trend undermining our NA model and is intimately tied to private ownership/property innitiatives by various groups and I think NAFA leadership didnt want to go down that road and rightly so.

Most credible hunting advocacy groups are against industries like game farming(synonymous with private ownership), who have fought for private ownership of wildlife and therefore are now regulated under agricultural law for the most part. Yes they still have restrictions on what they can do, but on a wholy different planet of deregulation to put it mildly

You may say that all this has nothing to do with falconry, but when you let your imagination work, one can come up with some disturbing scenarios.

And to say that in fact Public Trust philosophy is somehow favorable to anti-hunting group agendas and a threat to pet owners is really an amazing and sort of confusing leap. The Public Trust framework is literally the most entrenched framework we have supporting the sportsman and those resources used by the sportsman. Private owership of wildlife is the end of hunting for the public (except the fortunate few). Like Dick, I would have been speechless too

Here are some links worth checking out for those interested
http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-st...e-conservation

http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents...ementfinal.pdf

[Richard F, Hoyer]

Dan:
Perhaps the 'ownership of raptors' issue has run its course.

Concerning the change to the Golden Eagles, since you have been involved with the species for many years, perhaps you can provide me with an update of the species and some of it's biology. Given enough input, by applying some general biological principles, it might be possible to arrive at some ball park estimates dealing with the species' population.
That information in turn, can provide a comparison as to what the government indicates would be the acceptable take of the species for falconry purposes if indeed, that is a point of contention. I haven't followed what has transpired but do note your unhappiness.

1) Are there reasonable estimates as to the mean number of occupied territories in the lower 48 states, in Canada, in Alaska?
2) Of those territories, what is the mean number of successful nesting attempts?
3) What is the estimated number of fledged young per successful nesting attempt?
4) Or, are there estimates as to the number of fledge Golden Eagles per year in the U.S., in Canada, in Alaska?

Other information that would help my understanding of he species would be knowing at what age eagles become mature, any information about the size and age composition of floating population, and mean live expectancy after the first, second, or third years of age. Somewhere I saw information relating to eagle mortality due to wind turbines. Do you have any information of that nature? Besides shooting, lead poisoning, wind turbines, other types of poisons, what are some of the other causes of unnatural mortality in the species? What is known about mortality caused by natural causes such as starvation, pathogens, and parasites?

I suspect I could look such stuff up but I am a bit lazy at this point and was wondering if you had some of the above information at your finger tips.

Richard F. Hoyer

[wyodjm]

Dan:
Perhaps the 'ownership of raptors' issue has run its course.

Concerning the change to the Golden Eagles, since you have been involved with the species for many years, perhaps you can provide me with an update of the species and some of it's biology. Given enough input, by applying some general biological principles, it might be possible to arrive at some ball park estimates dealing with the species' population.
That information in turn, can provide a comparison as to what the government indicates would be the acceptable take of the species for falconry purposes if indeed, that is a point of contention. I haven't followed what has transpired but do note your unhappiness.

1) Are there reasonable estimates as to the mean number of occupied territories in the lower 48 states, in Canada, in Alaska?
2) Of those territories, what is the mean number of successful nesting attempts?
3) What is the estimated number of fledged young per successful nesting attempt?
4) Or, are there estimates as to the number of fledge Golden Eagles per year in the U.S., in Canada, in Alaska?

Other information that would help my understanding of he species would be knowing at what age eagles become mature, any information about the size and age composition of floating population, and mean live expectancy after the first, second, or third years of age. Somewhere I saw information relating to eagle mortality due to wind turbines. Do you have any information of that nature? Besides shooting, lead poisoning, wind turbines, other types of poisons, what are some of the other causes of unnatural mortality in the species? What is known about mortality caused by natural causes such as starvation, pathogens, and parasites?

I suspect I could look such stuff up but I am a bit lazy at this point and was wondering if you had some of the above information at your finger tips.

Richard F. Hoyer

Hi Richard:

If I may, please let me refer you to the following three NAFEX threads dealing specifically with the current issues surrounding eagles. It may take you some time to wade through the material, but I believe it will bring you up to speed with most of the information you’re seeking.

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=5907

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=6066

http://www.nafex.net/showthread.php?t=7487

If you have any questions after reading through the material, please don’t hesitate to ask.

All the best,