Quote Originally Posted by Tom Smith View Post
Ron,
I not up to snuff on this but what do you know and feel about getting the peregrine delisted in western Canada? What I have heard is that when they are delisted and there is no reason not to delist them, we could have a genuine passage take in the western US.

What are your thoughts on this?

I haven't heard much on this for a while. Maybe they are closer to being delisted than what I know, but I fear I'm only being optimistic.
If I recall correctly (I don't profess to enjoy a thorough working knowledge of the Canadian system of classification), all three peregrine subspecies are listed in Canada as species of "special concern," having been downgraded from endangered and/or threatened a few years ago.

Biologically speaking, peregrines should have been available to falconers years ago, but the Canadian officials' approach to peregrine take has been, to put it gently, remarkably conservative. I'll admit to being baffled by their resistance even in the face of overwhelming biological evidence.

Since Alaska is geographically "upstream" of much of Canada, there is little chance (never say "never" in a biological situation, eh?) a Canadian passage peregrine would be taken in Alaska, and I've thought it might be a useful start to somehow implement a passage take in this state. All three subspecies breed here, all are available as eyasses for falconry take, and there's strong biological evidence suggesting passage take would constitute no threat to wild populations. But logic frequently does not prevail, and it has not done so in this case.

Thinking back to the process that resulted in the present take, I believe it was instigated by a request from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to the USFWS to analyze and implement an eastern U.S. falconry take of passage peregrines. The Service undertook a National Environmental Policy Act analysis, concluded it was a reasonable course of action, and created the scheme for the take we have now. As with all NEPA documents, the analysis and subsequent plan are strictly defined and narrowly applicable, i.e., one couldn't just add the western U.S. to the existing document -- an entirely new NEPA analysis would be required. I suspect another request from AFWA and/or the flyway councils (preferably the full National Flyway Council) would be necessary to trigger the process on a western passage take. Baffling as it is, expect resistance from south (well, for you, north) of the border.

Sounds like a good project.