Private Property issues with Raptors

[Jimmy]

The only thing I can see beneficial for these forms is for the breeder of captive bred Raptors to be able to track genetic background........

They're absolutely useless for that too......

[redbird1]

I decided to re-read my contributions to this thread. As John's reply pointed out, my posts were harsh enough to impact their credibility - and honestly, they were just not my best presentation of myself. So - I apologize for going a little over the top. Mike

[wyodjm]

the feds dont think 3,500 citizens flying and hunting with birds is a big deal ...you read Milsap and Allens paper on take and that is CLEAR, but even that is "too conservative" for many falconers now...falconers tend to go from zero to 100 in confrontation when they dont get what they want. Yeah, the feds work for us and another 300 million people.

I once heard a falconer say that he was taking an agency to court becaue they have always managed for wildlife interests instead of human interests and it has gone way off balance and he was sick of it. "they work for us!" he exclaimed. I was stunned as any look at american history shows otherwise - and policies that benefited wildlife over humans are a grain of sand in comparison with our exploits of the resource. the wildlife agencies have been mandated to work for the best interests of wildlife so it can exist for our use, for the integrity of our natural systems, and to be enjoyed by current and future generations. You dont get everything you want and if you do, you do it by consensus building and establishing credability as a conservation partner.

John:

Yes, I've read the paper Milsap and Allen wrote on take.

Let’s approach this from a different perspective:

Have you read the environmental assessment on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote? Have you read the final ruling on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service also wrote? With your background as a wildlife professional, I’d be interested in knowing what you thought of these two documents.

Generally speaking, many of the wildlife professionals that aren’t talking about the EA or the final ruling on eagles are the ones that are receiving research or project grants and / or other funding directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. You really can’t blame them. It would like be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

If you’re familiar with the children's fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, from where I’ve been sitting, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

That doesn't make me any less credible as a conservation partner. I hope I've already established that.

Best,

[Yeomanfalconer]

I just feel it would be arrogant of me to assume that I "own" a creature as inherently free and wild as a passage falcon. More and more, I feel that way about even captive bred falcons, in spite of the domesticity factor. We have many years to go before we are akin to dogs and horses on this ownership issue. Some of my peers accuse me of loosing too many falcons. I look at it as enabling entitled liberty. I take Ed Pitcher's theories to extremes, and it is Ed's fault.

And that is an old friend Ed, from Florida, not Mr. Pitcher.

[Montucky]

John:

Yes, I've read the paper Milsap and Allen wrote on take.

Let’s approach this from a different perspective:

Have you read the environmental assessment on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote? Have you read the final ruling on eagles that the US Fish and Wildlife Service also wrote? With your background as a wildlife professional, I’d be interested in knowing what you thought of these two documents.

Generally speaking, many of the wildlife professionals that aren’t talking about the EA or the final ruling on eagles are the ones that are receiving research or project grants and / or other funding directly from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. You really can’t blame them. It would like be cutting off the hand that feeds them.

If you’re familiar with the children's fable “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, from where I’ve been sitting, the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.

That doesn't make me any less credible as a conservation partner. It just means I don't need glasses.

Best,

I have looked at some of it briefly and I would also say that I am not involved with federal migratory bird issues in any shape manner or form, I am not paying the bills with federal grants and I am not an expert in eagles. I'm one of those yankee born dickey bird douche-bags who wears sandals and eats tofu (no kidding I just eat tofu when ordering pad thai). ....actually 50/50 songbird to raptor work.

I try to stay on private land projects so I can clear the fray and avoid the paper work, then get on a tractor and seed some native habitat with a handshake from a landowner. Then the economy cratered so now I sell avon products and am in training as a mytag repairman. Actually I have worked for the state & feds and all can say is that feel sorry for state and federal biologists...they spent a decade in school, most get paid less than 40k, they are dedicated to the resource and the public enjoyment of it, and for thanks, they take an inhumane amount of hostility from everyone. In all seriousness I now of a state wildlife guy that is so sick of it he is in training to be a maytag repairman - make more money and work less.

Being familiar with how things get done within the agencies, I guess I am not one to think in terms of conspiracy or intent toward falconry when things dont pan out exactly the way we think they should. I have NEVER crossed paths with a state or federal biologist that is involved with avian research or policy that had an axe to grind with falconers or didn't want to support falconry (excepting quite a few LEO's). Mostly i run into professionals that have much bigger issues to grapple with and they tend to get into trouble with falconers because they tend to shelve falconry matters and focus their energy on actual threats to the resource and repsond to more significant user groups... either way you cant win.

I think many in our community are looking through colored glasses with operation falcon in the back of their mind. maybe it is time to bury the hatchet....a little..maybe sharpen it and bury it with just the handle sticking out.

I think if there has been a pattern, it is that agnecies have little understanding about just how fanatic and passionate the falconry community is...in total contrast to the statistics on participation.. So I think often someone drafting a regulation does what they try to do in all cases involving take. They try to be as conservative as they can in the areas they have more influence.

Falconers need to understand that take = "impact" from the standpoint of the official criterea used in a federal assessments on impacts to wildlife "No impact" cannot be legaly given when there is take . Every instance of take is not measured against a national population number to determine if it is meaningful or not. The argumement that we should be able to take the bounty of a population of birds of prey because there are not enough of us to matter, is a flawed arguement....there should always be a minimum take concept being promoted by a group that ought to be concerned with raptor populations...it is just better to advocate for not just what a population can withstand but for how a populations can thrive.

On that basis I think falconery orgs. should challenge the USFWS more in terms of making them put oil/gas and power co's. face to the flame about their impacts to raptors, expecially golden eagles. there is some hypocrisy I agree!

I just think if you try to imagine that you are not a falconer, and you are weighing a myraid of impacts or potential impacts to the resource and have to balance the considerations of wildlife, agriculture, energy development, alternative energy development, advocacy/comments from other wildlife NGO's, falconers, the public, native peoples...and do this all within the framework of our wildlife model and conservation priorities, ....I think then you might be a little less steamed, and be in the state of mind to achieve the results you want in terms of number of eagles allowed. the system does work for the most part.

[wyodjm]

I just think if you try to imagine that you are not a falconer, and you are weighing a myraid of impacts or potential impacts to the resource and have to balance the considerations of wildlife, agriculture, energy development, alternative energy development, advocacy/comments from other wildlife NGO's, falconers, the public, native peoples...and do this all within the framework of our wildlife model and conservation priorities, ....I think then you might be a little less steamed, and be in the state of mind to achieve the results you want in terms of number of eagles allowed. the system does work for the most part.

Hi John:

I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I’ve had a working relationship with them since the mid 1970’s. They have never properly (consistently) administered the use of eagles for falconry purposes since the 1972 amendment to the Eagle Act, or the regulations they wrote in 1984. Now they’re writing new regulations to cover their tracks for all their past neglect of not complying with the Eagle Act or their own, old written regulations.

I’m sorry, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as the federal agency responsible for the administration of a legal, licensed, and legitimate activity simply hasn’t done their job.

Why would I want to try to imagine I’m not a falconer? I am a falconer. They haven’t done their job as an administering federal agency. That’s not my fault. And I don’t feel sorry for them.

Sir Walter Raleigh is known for this great quote: “Books are wonderful things, but are a bloodless substitute for experience.”

My apologies to Fred for straying from the thread topic.

Best,

[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,

[everetkhorton]

post deleted

NAFMAN:
I see this is your first post, One of the few rules on the forum is that you sign your post with at least your first name. You can go to the User CP in the upper left hand corner and have your name added auto.

[Richard F, Hoyer]

I decided to re-read my contributions to this thread. As John's reply pointed out, my posts were harsh enough to impact their credibility - and honestly, they were just not my best presentation of myself. So - I apologize for going a little over the top. Mike

Mike:
I too noted that perhaps one of your posts was a bit harsh. That you acknowledged that fact then offered John an open apology is appreciated. Tells me you are a reasonably self confident individual.

I only wish those in NAFA leadership positions during 2008 had the same strength of character. To my knowledge, none of those individuals have openly admitted their error in the issue involving ownership of falconry birds and had the fortitude to apologize to the falconers that were besmirched and the falconry community at large.

Richard F. Hoyer

[Chris L.]

NAFMAN Sign your posts.

Yes as Ev said, you need to sign your posts. Also "united states" is not going to make it for your location. Please tell us the state you live in as well.

Thanks for understanding

Chris

Edit- I see you joined yesterday. I am going to delete your post as I do not like the smell of it. If you are legit and the post is legit I will bring it back. PM me if you would like.

[Chris L.]

Mike:
I too noted that perhaps one of your posts was a bit harsh. That you acknowledged that fact then offered John an open apology is appreciated. Tells me you are a reasonably self confident individual.

I only wish those in NAFA leadership positions during 2008 had the same strength of character. To my knowledge, none of those individuals have openly admitted their error in the issue involving ownership of falconry birds and had the fortitude to apologize to the falconers that were besmirched and the falconry community at large.

Richard F. Hoyer

Richard and All,

This thread is starting to go down the toilet. If you are going to use NAFEX as a way to brow beat others I am not going to allow it. I think the thread was started that way and it took a good turn now it is back where I do not want it.

If people have problems with an individual, you need to pick up the phone and call each one of them to let them know how you feel. Talking about them when they are not here, to defend themselves, will not be tolerated. NAFEX is not the place for this type of harassment.

I think this thread is needed and we need to talk about it. But we cannot attack others, even if you feel it is warranted. NAFEX is not the medium for this.

Please keep the thread on topic and proactive. Thank you for understanding.

Thanks

Chris

[jfseaman]

Thanks Chris.

Someone changed the thread title, I wasn't consulted prior to the change.

When I started this thread it was more about who Quinn is and how he got to the position postulated in "The Journal" article.

The issue is so divisive within our falconry community family it is ripping us apart but what I am more interested in is the roots behind those that believe live raptors are not private property.

Not being in agreement with a family members position is acceptable, attacking a family member is not. Trying to determine if the association administrative members are trying to promote personal opinions is acceptable, slandering the association is not.