Originally Posted by
Montucky
A couple of points that should be the starting point of this conversation:
Subchapter B of 50CFR Part 13 set the over-arching terms for all permits such as Taxidermy, Education, Falconry, rehab etc. In 13.47 you will see that the inspection requirement is an umbrella requirement for all permits relating to bird possession. So it's not like its some crazy thing applied only to falconry.
§ 13.47 Inspection requirement.
Any person holding a permit under this subchapter B shall allow the Director's agent to enter his premises at any reasonable hour to inspect any wildlife or plant held or to inspect, audit, or copy any permits, books, or records required to be kept by regulations of this subchapter B.
50CFR allows someone to hold a permit for education, abatement, eagle exhibition, rehab or whatever; and folks are allowed to conduct unrestrained commercial activity with non-MBTA species. Taken together its a pretty hard argument to claim the government is impinging on one's rights. If the plaintiffs want to do education, then get an education permit and do education. Let's not forget that the feedback loop between commerce and exploitation is at the very essence of why the MBTA came to be in the first place. The law was not written and maintained in law solely to address 1918 conditions.
As most people can understand, falconry is only as true to form as the people practicing it. The original authors of the regs were falconers who had a concern for the birds and a concern for falconry first and foremost. Its based on an understanding that falconry can quickly morph into something else...unless we set some sideboards for those entering into the practice. And we care about the birds - right?. We dont need our native wildlife, captive bred or otherwise, becoming a pure commodity in commerce, or the voices behind that perspective becoming majority members of our community.
What is often hard for folks to appreciate is that the wildlife agencies are our most important allies - even when they sometimes suck. They institutionally recognize and support traditional hunting practices and are the most insulated from the political influence of animal rights lobbyists. They pay their mortgage from sportsman dollars...literally.
If we truly deregulate captive bred birds or others away from wildlife agency control (by classifying them from wildlife to domestic animals)...it will still fall under the oversight of someone. Who would that be? State and federal Department of Ag or county or municipal animal services. Animal rights groups have a growing sphere of influence in these sectors...there is no telling what inspection requirements would come forth. Certainly not ones written by our own community, and likely requirements not in the interests if the birds.
I support our forefather's order of priorities: 1) the birds 2) the practice of falconry 3) the falconer
NAFEX Supporting Member
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote