Hawk Breeding Regs

This is a long post with contributions by both Matt and me. It is taken from a letter written to the USFWS responding to their request for input on proposed new regulations for falcon breeders. Feel free to skip if it seems too "inside"-- but I think tht it (especially Matt's part) will be of interest to anyone concerned about the endless push by government to regulate the way in which we keep our animals:

(Me first): I have been a falconer for well over thirty years,. I have reviewed the proposed rule to change the regulations governing raptor propagation and while I agree that the regulations need to be easier to understand, I feel that the proposed rules need some serious changes.

First: the FWS proposes breeding success as a criterion for renewal of breeding permits and continued possession of raptors under breeding permits. This is an impossible standard which would discourage rather than encourage innovations and improvements in breeding techniques. Breeding is as much an art as a science, and breeders artists. Some hawks take years to breed; others need changes of mates; artificial insemination birds “click” with some sperm and not others. Some hawks succeed some years and not in others. And what will happen to non- breeding birds if falconry permits are filled? This may be the most important provision of all.

Second: it only seems common sense to allow non- authorized persons--family, friends, employees-- to care for raptors, as long as they are being kept on- premise. Some may well be better qualified in the judgment of the permittee than some falconers he knows!

The time- frame for imprinting hybrids should be extended. Birds can hardly be prohibited from seeing other birds for the rest of their lives.

Finally, the private property issue. Raptors are becoming domestic animals. Some Game Departments actually have expressed resentment to falconers of my acquaintance that said falconers are allowed access to “their” birds. [ Ed. note not in original: this happened in California--SB] This is absurd, considering the relative amounts of time and money spent and the biological reality. My friend Matthew Mullenix says it better than I can, truthfully and forcefully:

“The property status of captive-bred raptors is of monumental import to modern falconry. We legally purchase our captive-bred birds; we pay for their medical treatment, we trade them; we give them away; we sue for damages when they are maliciously injured or stolen; and we take pains to choose the best of them for making the next generation. In fact, we consider them valued private properties, and we act accordingly. Our choices, methods and aims are identical to those of conscientious breeders of livestock the world over: We seek the improvement and perpetuation of animals we love; and we seek independence.

“U.S. law supports our claims to private ownership in various precedents. I believe common sense supports our claims, also, and that these two facts are related. Consider a citizen jury, non-experts in wildlife law, deciding whether a fifth-generation captive-bred Harris hawk belongs to the falconer who legally paid for it. Such a bird would be chosen with care for its known lineage, the reputation of its breeders, and the personal aesthetic judgment of the one who buys it. When taken home, the bird is named, trained, cared for, and improved over time; its daily life the sole responsibility of its owner. This process differs little from the purchase of springer spaniel, a quarter horse, or a Siamese cat.

“For all intents and purposes, we own these birds. The "common sense standard" will ultimately decide this in our favor.

“I presume the Service disagrees on that point. The proposed regulations read in part that these birds are "always under the stewardship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" and are "not private property."

“I don't believe this set of regulations should include such a claim. I do understand that should captive-bred raptors belong to us, their Federal regulation becomes difficult if not impossible. I also understand that some good has come and may yet come from Federal permitting. Nonetheless, this cat has long since left the bag.

“The Service's "stewardship" of captive bred raptors is effectively moot. Can the Service even say with certainty how many captive bred raptors have been produced or are now alive? Can it determine their origins; or their relations to one another; or whatever becomes of them? Perhaps in theory it could, with proper funding and a larger staff. But why should it? Does the Service have any interest in the improvement of captive-bred birds for the betterment of falconry?

“How long can the Service justify the expense of monitoring a population of animals with no relation to any wild stock? In short, I don't believe the Service can demonstrate its stewardship of captive-bred raptors.

“On the other hand, falconers and breeders themselves can easily demonstrate good stewardship of their own stock. For one example, the University of Washington geneticist (and raptor breeder) Toby Bradshaw has compiled an expanding database and pedigree of hundreds of captive bred Harris hawks. More mundane examples of the daily (hourly) attention to individual captive-bred birds are innumerable and multiplied by the current number of their breeders and owners.

“Again: Captive bred raptors belong to their legal caretakers. We are their rightful stewards, accepting of all the peril and seeking all the reward that this status affords us. I appreciate your consideration of my comments as you continue to draft these regulations”.