Quote Originally Posted by red_tailed View Post
I can say that being from bc, the goshawk issue has been one that has plagued Lowermainland and vancouver island falconers for some time. Several years ago BC wildlife officials put backpack transmitters on many vancouver island and QCI goshawks. While the QCI goshawk is technically it's own species, they are genetically the exact same as every other goshawk out there. It has been known for some time that the QCI goshawks and the Van Island goshawks cross back and forth hence why falconers can't take goshawks from Van island, cause they are "the endangered variety." Well one of the backpacked birds was found to have crossed the georgia straight and was found in the lowermainland. Well the biologists made the amazing discovery that, "holy crap the lowermainland of bc has Van Island goshawks. So that must mean that the goshawks found in southwestern BC are endangered. Time to close that up to falconers as well." Now if a southwestern bc falconer wants a wild taken goshawk they have to travel into the interior to get one. Pretty BS reasoning but it's the government wo what would you expect. Oh and second note, many of the backpacked goshawks were found dead only a few weeks after having them installed. It seems the backpacks hindered the flying ability and hunting of the birds. Smart move on that one.

Bob
The QCI goshawk is a subspecies whose range is expanding, not contracting. Even if the population in the core habitat, on the Queen Charlotte Islands themselves is in trouble, which I doubt very much, it dosnt make sense to list a subspecies that is expanding.

If they are crossing from Vancouver Island to the lower mainland of BC, they are also crossing the Straight of Juan de Fuca into the Olympic Penninsula. Of course, they are also crossing the Canadian border on the mainland into both Alaska and Washington State. Lucky for us that was not documented, or noted in the ESA ruling. Then again, if it WERE noted in the ESA ruling it would be case for not listing them, because its not, after all, a "Distinct Population Segment"

We had a biologist working on the goshawks on the west side of Washington State that was real piece of work. As I recall he had a 100% mortality rate within two weeks for the tiercel goshawks that he mounted backpacks on, and a better but alarmingly high mortality rate for the females. He arogantly attributed the mortality to "el Niño", and claimed that the hawks were driving themelves to starvation to feed their families during a poor prey year. Funny, he didnt mention that they were anything less than fit when the backpacks went on. Everytime I see this guy's work cited my skin crawls, and he has proven that his data is suspect. His work on Western Washington goshawks was sited in that ESA final rule.