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

[Dances with Ducks]

Quote:
Why??

 

[downhome]

its the fact that they are even subject to the fwsa or of you want to ad treaty, magratory bird act treaty that is of issue! I once again pose the question how many in the treaty are requiring such as our own fwsa?if no other countries preclude the keeping nor propagation of muskovy ducks,
then where is our fwsa growing thier balls? if they have become migratory all of a sudden well , dna can play a key roll in telling the difference between the domestic,freral and wild! should I bring a case to court I would have to prove it seems the fwsa should since this is thier issue, considering the progresssion of DNA testing I think they will come up short!!!!!

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
I don't think that will help. Some of the stuff I am reading is that feral muscovies are a threat to migratory birds. They compete for the same resources. That seems to be the thrust behind this new regulation.

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
Exactly. The specifics are spelled out in the CFR - it is not considered a migratory wild bird, because, in fact, it is not. Worse, such species as are indeed migratory are strictly prohibited from private ownership, possession or propagation. Trying to make a case based on that is going down the wrong path.

It IS native to three counties in Texas, however. It is outside of those counties that it is being considered invasive by this legislation.

But, could the ruling be changed to consider it a native species, due to it's having a recognized natural habitat within the continental US? Last I checked, Texas was in the US.
Considering that the FWS does recognize the breed as having food value, might and an exception possibly be made on the grounds that it is technically a native species, albeit with limited range in the wild?

But of course that aint gonna happen. Too many people are whining that the duck is taking over their golf courses, parks and country clubs. In an odd twist on republicanism, the States themselves are begging the Federal government to do their dirty work for them.
So much for states rights.

 

[fowltemptress]

Quote:
I don't understand . . . if that's the case, why are mallards and Canadian geese sold at hatcheries?

 

[Dances with Ducks]

Quote:
Exactly. The specifics are spelled out in the CFR - it is not considered a migratory wild bird, because, in fact, it is not. Worse, such species as are indeed migratory are strictly prohibited from private ownership, possession or propagation. Trying to make a case based on that is going down the wrong path.

It IS native to three counties in Texas, however. It is outside of those counties that it is being considered invasive by this legislation.

But, could the ruling be changed to consider it a native species, due to it's having a recognized natural habitat within the continental US? Last I checked, Texas was in the US.
Considering that the FWS does recognize the breed as having food value, might and an exception possibly be made on the grounds that it is technically a native species, albeit with limited range in the wild?

But of course that aint gonna happen. Too many people are whining that the duck is taking over their golf courses, parks and country clubs. In an odd twist on republicanism, the States themselves are begging the Federal government to do their dirty work for them.
So much for states rights.

Read the CFR again, they start out by explaining that they are adding the muscovy because it has "expanded it's territory. That is how it came under this jurisdiction as I read it.

The muscovy is a large duck native to
South America, Central America, and
Mexico. Due to a recent northward
expansion of the range of the species,
there is a small natural population in
three counties in southern Texas in
which natural breeding of wild birds
has been confirmed. For that reason, we
included this species in the final rule
published today to revise the list of
migratory birds found at 50 CFR 10.13.

Edited to revise my read on this: They are saying it is protected under the act in the three Texas counties, but yes, the primary thrust of this change is that outside those counties it is considered an invasive species regardless of it's protection in those counties. Not good.​

 

[downhome]

if what you say is true the muscovy has no place on the MBA

"Exactly. The specifics are spelled out in the CFR - it is not considered a migratory wild bird", because, in fact, it is not.

is it or not a migratory species if not ?

Worse, such species as are indeed migratory are strictly prohibited from private ownership, possession or propagation.

again it is not the letter of the this law to govern invasive species but to protect native migratory birds!

no it was added because it was deemed they naturally expanded but muscovys have expanded their range across the world due to human means, what do you cite is but one study chosen to further this agenda.

I suppose grass carp expanded to the mississippi on their own also? and the gobbie did the same? therefore they should be protected and indoctrinated into the native fauna?

the muscovy is a established barnyard resident through all the trail and tribulations that many other domestic animals have traveled.
this rule is wrong and needs clarification if the muscovy is able to be trod upon the pig is next if any species presents a collapse of native species it is the domestic swine. you wont see that any time soon though will you. but this will issue a precedent in this and every other species raised for food! even though this only a rule or regulation it will be applied in the futre to other meat industrys and each animal that has escaped back into nature, besides the scove all I can think of is pig and cattle but Im sure there are a good many more.

 

[Dances with Ducks]

Quote:
I don't understand . . . if that's the case, why are mallards and Canadian geese sold at hatcheries?

I don't know about Canadian geese, but they seem to make a distinction on domestic mallards. They seem to treat is as a separate breed from the wild mallard. Maybe because it has been domesticated for so long. I think the same case could also be made for muscovies.

 

[cherndon712]

Quote:
Yah! What about English Sparrows, Kudzu, Japanese Beetles,
Asian Lady Beetles and last but not least...illegal aliens?!
NOOOO!!! Their worried about DUCKS!
How stupid is that?!?

I can see it now... prostitutes, drug dealers and duck owners sitting in a jail cell.
I'm sure they'll pat down the duck criminals first to make sure they don't have any
cracked corn in their pockets.

There going to be announcing a new regulatory agency, the DEA.
That's the Duck Enforcement Agency!
sorry I couldn't help it hide

Sorry, that is too funny!! This is not a funny situation by any means, but this does show how ludicrous this regulation truly is! I understand their want/need to eradicate muscovies from areas that they have become a burden in, but why can't they just do that instead of trying to eradicate them from the entire country?​

 

[Rafter 7 Paint Horses]

I honestly don't know about other states, but in Texas, you are required to have a Game Bird Breeders License in order to possess Game Birds in captivity for the purpose of propagation or sale, or for selling game bird eggs.

Game Birds defined as: Turkeys, Ducks of all varieties, Geese of all varieties, Brandt, Grouse, Prairie chickens, Pheasant of all varieties, Sandhill cranes, Partridge, Bobwhite Quail, Scaled Quail, Mearn's Quail, Gambel's Quail, Red-Billed Pigeons, Band-tailed Pigeons, Plover of all varieties, Mourning Doves, White-winged Doves, White-fronted Doves, Snipe of all varieties, Shore Birds of all varieties, Chachalaca. (Partridge and all species of pheasant, although not native to Texas, are defined by law as game birds. This includes the Chukar, Hungarian partridge and Francolin.

There are 2 classes of License - Fees may be different this year, I don't know yet.
Class 1 - more than 1000 game birds - Yearly fee is $180.00
Class 2 - not more than 1000 game birds - Yearly fee is $25.00
Either license is valid for selling game bird eggs.

You have to fill out a form yearly and send it into Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
On this form, you list the kind of game bird, the number you have on hand on Aug. 1st (2008), Number of birds purchased, number raised, number sold, number that were released, number that were lost (died), number on hand on July 31st (2009), number of eggs purchased, number of eggs sold, who you bought birds & eggs from, and who you sold birds & eggs to.
(The years are for example; each form starts on August 1st of that year and ends on July 31st of the next year.)

You must furnish upon request of a game warden, a receipt showing: the name and address of whom you bought the birds from, your name and address, the date of purchase, the species and number of birds, eggs, or parts of dead game birds acquired.

I mean, really, how much more regulation do we need??????

Jean