Muscovies in US - REGULATION CHANGES OPEN FOR COMMENTS - 10/1 update

[Duck_feeder]

Quote:
Thanks for the update Tom. I've added the info you provided to the first post as it's easier for others to find and reference.

 

[BellLisamo]

ive been without a computer for about 2 weeks now, and just saw this post.

holy mackeral....

talk about upsetting

 

[Parrotchick]

Some good news may be forthcoming, though hard to say when. My friend who works in the Migratory Birds Division of FWS just called me to tell me that she was forwarded a memo today saying something to the effect that FWS has taken our comments into strong consideration and is likely planning to make the sale and possession of muscovies legal. I am not sure the channels they will need to take to make this actually happen. I spoke to a law professor friend yesterday who said these "legislative regulations" (those that have had public comment periods) can take a while to change, often months, just because of procedures that need to be followed. Congress can stop a federal regulation, but are not likely to do it unless it's an emergency where "there are bodies piling up." So perhaps there was a legal loophole whereby an even newer reg (maybe an"interpretive" one, the other kind of federa reg) subercedes the one that just went through. I don't know; I'm sure it's something keeping their legal department busy. But the long and short of it is that the people who can change the reg are willing to change it and are doing what they can in the confines of the law to make it happen.

So maybe it was our comments, along with the involvement of the APA and other organizations, that made our concerns known, but it sounds like we will be able continue doing our thing with muscovies, short of releasing them into the wild (preaching to the choir here on that point I'm sure). To mix metaphors, you don't need to do handstands just yet, but you can also call off the hounds. I'll keep you posted as I know more. Thanks to everyone who got involved and and took the time to share the information.

 

[swheat]

Quote:
Were these fourteen were from the earlier period (2008) ? Right ?

 

[Duck_feeder]

Quote:
thanks for the update. I've added this to the first post also.

 

[TomNY]

Quote:
The regulations deal with Muscovies as an invasive wild breed. Domestic Muscovies have evolved away from the wild for well over 100 years and should be exempted from wild breed regulations. Tom

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Were these fourteen were from the earlier period (2008) ? Right ?

When I read the various links, I read that TEN comments were received. Not very many for a country with a population of nearly 309 million! That's .003% of the population. Now while I would not expect a large percentage of comments, I would expect considerably more than that (even if we are talking 14 instead of 10).

When I signed the online petition, here is hte comment I added:

While I realize that "correct" procedures were followed in publicizing this rule change, that procedure did not take into account that the vast majority of muscovies in the US are NOT wildlife, but rather are domesticated farm, exhibition and small flock animals. Notification WAS NOT disseminated to these people. ONLY TEN responses were engendered--does that unequivocally not say that there was a LACK OF COMMUNICATION?

I do understand that IN SOME AREAS wild muscovies are a problem; however, IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, THEY ARE NOT A PROBLEM.

The Fish and Wildlife Service should NOT be setting rules for domestic animals. That is NOT their charter; their charter in regards to the Migratory Birds Treaty Act is to PROTECT migratory birds. To a very large extent, this proposed regulation instead promotes the extinction of this species!

Appropriate rules should allow SPECIFIC areas that have DO have an identified problem with muscovies the authority to control WILD populations. IN NO WAY should domestic populations be controlled other than addressing release into/capture from the wild.

People keep all sorts of domestic animals for all sorts of reasons: food, work, pleasure, exhibition, pets, etc. The PURPOSE for which any person keeps an animal is not nor should be the purview of Fish and Game. Fish and Game should ONLY be concerned only with how they impact migratory species. On private property this is largely a moot point—just as migratory birds must deal with other domestic animals: dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, goats, domestic geese and other domestic ducks, chickens, etc., they should have to deal with domestic muscovies—this should be no different.

I suggest this rule IMMEDIATELY be put on hold to allow sufficient time for FULL communication and commentary from ALL interested parties.​

 

[TomNY]

Quote:
Were these fourteen were from the earlier period (2008) ? Right ?

Correct. Tom

 

[FireTigeris]

Wait- so what about 'mutt' ducks that look like Scovies? Are they going to do a blood test?

What about a new breed that occurred spontaneously in 2010 around march... what if these new domestic ducks had a ... different name because they are domestic?

Those aren't Muscovies those are:

'Domestic sadlebacks'
'Domestic Red Face Clowns'
'Domestic Hissers'
'Domestic ALDs' - "American Large Ducks" (Like "American Short-hair cats")
'Domestic Iridescent Wadders'
'Domestic caruncles'

 

[Duck_feeder]

Quote:
Were these fourteen were from the earlier period (2008) ? Right ?

When I read the various links, I read that TEN comments were received. Not very many for a country with a population of nearly 309 million! That's .003% of the population. Now while I would not expect a large percentage of comments, I would expect considerably more than that (even if we are talking 14 instead of 10).

I believe some comments overlapped. It was 10 topics from 14 comments.