Hawks :(

[Nambroth]

Whether they were once "near extinct" or not red tails and Cooper's hawks now have the exact same conservation status as subway rats, look it up. They have the lowest status possible with regard to their numbers and if an "overprotected & thus overpopulated" status existed, that is what they would be. The law that protects them originated in 1916 and is still there only because nobody has made any real effort to update the species that may still need protection.

S.S.S. Do it without hesitation and most importantly without guilt. These killers are not endangered any more than the cockroach in your kitchen.

This is misinformation, if you live in the USA. Red tailed hawks and Cooper's Hawks are still protected under the U.S. MBTA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html
This IS NOT the same conservation status as a cockroach or subway rat (note: Norway Rats and German Cockroaches are introduced/invasive species in the USA so they have no protection at all). Officials still respect and uphold this law, and it IS taken seriously. Some local governments may not, as individual concerns by conservation offers vary, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume that no one cares anymore.

Suggesting blazen removal of native wildlife, especially a migratory species, is a bit ignorant. I have no doubt that certain situations warrant the removal of raptors, and permits are often issued in these situations, but suggesting that all chicken keepers that have had a hawk sighting or predation shoot said hawk is, frankly, ignorant. I respect that everyone wants to protect their livestock and pets. I do, too! But shooting every time is NOT an answer to this complex problem.

I am surprised they let people own hawks unless its injured and can not fly and kept for educational purposes. Don't get the falconer thing ,Just my opinion
I guess every one has there thing.

Obtaining a falconry license in the USA is not easy nor casually handed out. It requires very strict requirements to be met by the person wishing to become involved in falconry, including building an inspected mews for the bird(s). Then hopeful falconers must find a licensed falconer to apprentice to. There are very strict laws governing when they may trap raptors, how, and the species. It is very carefully regulated.
I, myself, do not wish to be a falconer, but I respect those that do it correctly and ethically. To me, it is no different than keeping any other undomesticated bird species (parrots, some aviary birds, etc), if done correctly and with the best interest in the bird's welfare.

 

[foamyownsyou]

I am surprised they let people own hawks unless its injured and can not fly and kept for educational purposes. Don't get the falconer thing ,Just my opinion
I guess every one has there thing.

excuse me I do not own Cisco of Shuandi I am not a pet keeper they are my hunting buddies

 

[sourland]

excuse me I do not own Cisco of Shuandi I am not a pet keeper they are my hunting buddies

In post number 327 on this thread you do say that you own a red tail? You are keeping a wild bird in a captive environment, correct? Can you keep him in captivity for ever or are you eventually required to free him?

 

[LorenMcHugh]

...

I lost a silkie chick to a hawk earlier today, free ranging makes happy birds but also causes many more problems all you can really do if you plan to always free range is just kill what predators you can and just hope. BTW if hawks are your only problem id suggest a martin colony, thats what im working on right now.

I'm having hawk issues too. What is a Martin colony??

 

[cochinator]

There is no doubt that it is illegal under federal law to protect your flock from hawks. But yes, they do have the same conservation status as subway rats and cockroaches. Just look at the Wikipedia on each species, they are all rated as having the "least concern" possible with regard to their numbers on the IUCN list of threatened species. They are nevertheless protected today by the very law you cite, an idiotic and archaic carryover from 1916 that makes no more sense than laws still on the books that prevent people from parking their horse in front of the town hall during the weekly slave auction.

Whatever, if you want to cite a law as the basis for your belief that people should not be able to protect their flock from hawks, to protect their personal property from something trying to kill it, go ahead. An archaic law from 1916 is the only argument you have. There is no basis in reality or morality for the law. Hawks are not endangered, it's a documented fact. THEY ARE NOT ENDANGERED IN ANY CAPACITY, OR EVEN MILDLY THREATENED. And people who cite this law as a basis for their argument that people should not be allowed to protect their pets from being killed by a wild animal, have no more respect from me than the numbskulls who cited federal law when arguing that African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. Federal law isn't always right. It took them about 200 years to get it right with people, so I'm not holding my breath about them getting it right for chickens any time soon. But I'll still do what I know to be right myself in the meantime.

This is misinformation, if you live in the USA. Red tailed hawks and Cooper's Hawks are still protected under the U.S. MBTA, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html

This IS NOT the same conservation status as a cockroach or subway rat (note: Norway Rats and German Cockroaches are introduced/invasive species in the USA so they have no protection at all). Officials still respect and uphold this law, and it IS taken seriously. Some local governments may not, as individual concerns by conservation offers vary, but it is absolutely incorrect to assume that no one cares anymore.

Suggesting blazen removal of native wildlife, especially a migratory species, is a bit ignorant. I have no doubt that certain situations warrant the removal of raptors, and permits are often issued in these situations, but suggesting that all chicken keepers that have had a hawk sighting or predation shoot said hawk is, frankly, ignorant. I respect that everyone wants to protect their livestock and pets. I do, too! But shooting every time is NOT an answer to this complex problem.


Obtaining a falconry license in the USA is not easy nor casually handed out. It requires very strict requirements to be met by the person wishing to become involved in falconry, including building an inspected mews for the bird(s). Then hopeful falconers must find a licensed falconer to apprentice to. There are very strict laws governing when they may trap raptors, how, and the species. It is very carefully regulated.
I, myself, do not wish to be a falconer, but I respect those that do it correctly and ethically. To me, it is no different than keeping any other undomesticated bird species (parrots, some aviary birds, etc), if done correctly and with the best interest in the bird's welfare.

 

[Hangtown Farms]

excuse me I do not own Cisco of Shuandi I am not a pet keeper they are my hunting buddies

You are excused

 

[Hangtown Farms]

You are excused

That was a joke by the way

 

[chiknhurder]

Wikipedia is not the law and is not always correct. This is from their website: "~~information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation."


Nambroth is correct and has done his/her homework. In my state of Missouri, I'm allowed to protect my livestock from predation. That being said, the feds first want me to go out of my way to protect my stock from predators rather than eliminate the predators. If I'm unable to do so, then I must apply for a permit to remove the problem but because I have applied for a permit is no guarantee that I'll get one. Whether or not they're endangered, threatened, on the cusp of extinction or whatever other classification there is doesn't matter. They are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as the Endangered Species Act, period. I didn't find cockroaches or rats on any lists protecting them with the exception of laboratory rats only under the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.

If you require more proof, here's the government link with facts and not opinions:

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/regulationspolicies/mbta/compare.pdf


EDIT*** There is an estimated 1 million red-tailed hawks in the U.S. There are approximately 50 BILLION chickens. Do we have too many hawks or too many chickens?

 

[Nambroth]

There is no doubt that it is illegal under federal law to protect your flock from hawks. But yes, they do have the same conservation status as subway rats and cockroaches. Just look at the Wikipedia on each species, they are all rated as having the "least concern" possible with regard to their numbers on the IUCN list of threatened species. They are nevertheless protected today by the very law you cite, an idiotic and archaic carryover from 1916 that makes no more sense than laws still on the books that prevent people from parking their horse in front of the town hall during the weekly slave auction.

Whatever, if you want to cite a law as the basis for your belief that people should not be able to protect their flock from hawks, to protect their personal property from something trying to kill it, go ahead. An archaic law from 1916 is the only argument you have. There is no basis in reality or morality for the law. Hawks are not endangered, it's a documented fact. THEY ARE NOT ENDANGERED IN ANY CAPACITY, OR EVEN MILDLY THREATENED. And people who cite this law as a basis for their argument that people should not be allowed to protect their pets from being killed by a wild animal, have no more respect from me than the numbskulls who cited federal law when arguing that African Americans had to sit at the back of the bus. Federal law isn't always right. It took them about 200 years to get it right with people, so I'm not holding my breath about them getting it right for chickens any time soon. But I'll still do what I know to be right myself in the meantime.

Respectfully, you may have misunderstood. I was quoting the fact that the law is still in place, and is still enforced. I did not suggest it was right or wrong, but we must assume that people come to this forum to learn and for information (as many do) and to simply tell them to shoot and there will be no repercussions is not fair. It is true that most people won't "get caught" but it is misleading to not at least inform people of the law. Let them make their own choices based on education, instead of opinion.

That said, I quote the law in earnest in hoping that it will educate folks. What they do next is their own business. But, as a conservationist, and as someone that does NOT agree with all laws written as they stand, I still maintain that it is ignorant to shoot hawks with a blaise attitude, because it's an immensely small part of the picture. Some hawk species are very populous and some are not. Some are locally endangered while at the same time being globally of no concern. There are more than two species of hawks commonly encountered when keeping chickens, and while you may be able to identify them easily, I know that not everyone here can. It is not quite so simple, and shooting first is not a good, overall, sustainable answer. One must look at the whole picture, and it's not quite so simple.

That said, I don't wish to argue. I respect that you have an opinion on it, and I have one, and they don't meet. I won't discuss further since I don't want to argue.

 

[BlueJayFarm]

I appreciate everyone's personal stories of pet loss and hawk deterrent methods. I am still so sad after losing our favorite (by a long shot) hen a few days ago to a red-tailed hawk. I have read this entire thread (took me three days!) and others and have done a lot of research since then. Our hen was black and almost our biggest hen; an Australorp. She was the wisest one, the matriarch, who usually alerted others to hawks, so I was ignorant thinking she wouldn't be the one to be killed. Our rooster (her son) will be a year old at the end of April. He is extremely vigilant. Unfortunately, when I ran to the commotion, he was hiding in the corner with everyone else, except Mabel. I am sooo sad still. I wish I could have saved her, and I wish Ernest had fought the hawk off.

Last year, we lost a smaller hen to a falcon. That's when we got into roosters, who I have since learned are very valuable. Still, it's hard to find a rooster who will be aggressive towards hawks but not towards you! Anyhow, I just wanted to add my story to the others. We live in western Oregon and it really seems that this winter there is a huge concentration of avian predators. In four days, we had "the" red-tailed hawk, then a falcon of some sort, then a bald eagle, then a peregine falcon! We had been having a lot of close calls, but they have A LOT of cover, and once I even found a hen hiding in a rhody bush and the rooster circling it with a hawk in the branches just above, so it seemed like the girls were in good hands and Ernest was earning his keep and on a steep learning curve. Well, clearly I was asking for too much and the hawk won one. (But of all 13 birds, why did it have to be HER?!)

So, I think I will try putting out some of those whirly gigs, and raising a pair of guinea fowl. Possibly a turkey but I am concerned that a turkey tom may harm my girlies. I am also thinking of raising a german shepherd, but have to get dh on board first. Also, with 11 girls now and more under a broody, I'm thinking of adding another rooster. We'll see. I sympathize with everyone who struggles with the fine line of giving your birds a quality of life free ranging and keeping them safe. Very sad!! Thanks everyone for the stories, they do help. (And I'm jealous of everyone that has crows, because for some reason we do not!)