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

[Rare Feathers Farm]

Quote:
No. They would not survive the winters here without help. Most of mine cannot fly (they are too large) and they wouldn't want to leave because they're imprinted, get lots of food, shelter and a kiddie pool. What more could they want? LOL

 

[HenPen]

Hahhaha Thanks!! We may have to start and underground Scovie railroad....

Quote:

 

[muscovychef]

thanks rare feathers ive checked feathersite out before on muscovy sellers, you can go down the list 1 after the other and they either stopped selling or dont even have them anymore. so i gave up.
to tv , its never been anything else but over the muscovy that are in public areas.( I sent allen another email. saying this exactly).............. not 1 of my birds could survive with out my help. When we have our rains my muscovy are soggy messes that spend the rest of the day looking dejected preening they dont do the crazy stuff my mallard based breeds do. none of my drakes even young could get off the ground my hens can hop up on things about 2 feet high I left a old wall mount gas heater about 5 feet long 18 inches high all my hens perch there LOL guess it makes them feel they flew great hights they preen there and watch the drakes down below them LOL LOL . no roof birds no flying. they just get to big and lazy
i also told him what i use them for il post a reply should i get one.

 

[Fancyfur&feathers]

Hello, just found this and was shocked into registering and trying to help. I sent the following to Mr. Allen (thanks to all who posted his contact info.) I hope my "2 cents" can help.


Dear Mr. Allen,
I am a small flock owner in the State of OHIO and am writing in response to
the law being considered concerning Muscovy duck ownership and populations in
the U.S.
Muscovy ducks are a "green" alternative to fly and mosquito populations
around any pond, chicken or horse farm. They are virtually mute, thereby
rendering them far more "neighbor friendly" than the popularly recognized white
Pekins. They ARE a healthy lean table bird when dressed out for consumption- but
requiring a permit for "meat production" would be counterproductive to the small
flock owner trying to keep ducks and eggs for personal use. Their eggs are low
in cholesterol and high in protein. The manure they produce is a beneficial
natural compost additive for garden and flower bed fertilizer. As pets they can
be very friendly and sociable. The Muscovy ducks I have had for three years have
yet to venture more than 100 feet from their enclosure or their pond as they are
far too heavy to fly great distances. Also, as their feathers are not
waterproof, they are unable to take refuge on the water for long periods of time
making them less able to defend themselves against natural predators-therefore
they would not make a very successful "wild" or "release" duck where coyote,
raccoon or even neighborhood dogs roam.
As a small family farm owner, I feel my Muscovy ducks are an invaluable
asset and do NOT support this proposed law. Please do not attempt to mandate
farm ownership production and or sale of Muscovy eggs or ducks across the US.
This law should be deemed unconstitutional and should not be supported by
lawmakers or individuals alike. We love our animals and do everything we can to
keep them safe and healthy. Please help keep big government out of our yards,
off our family farms and out of our pockets.
Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide
concerning this alarming development.
Sincerely,
Annette Bame
Ohio

 

[muscovychef]

hey ann, nice letter,
well i told you i would post his reply ROFLMAO HERE IT IS

Ron:

Thanks for your email. We'll see what we can do to accommodate your interests when we revise the regulations.

George


short as it is .................................................................................................................

 

[Fancyfur&feathers]

This is the response I received to my letter to Mr. Allen:


Thank you for your email. You are referring to regulations that will go into effect on Wednesday. I put the regulations out for two months of public comment in 2008, but got few responses. Therefore, I wasn't aware of some of the issues with muscovy ducks.

We're not trying to get big government into your yard. We're obligated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to protect species listed under any of our migratory bird treaties with other countries, and that list now includes the muscovy duck. Because of the wording of the Act, protecting activities like yours requires that I provide for them in the regulations. If you have suggestions for revising the regulations to accommodate your interests, I'll be happy to hear them.

Regards,

George

 

[Mac_]

Glad to see folks writing and e-mailing.

I'll try to find the specific name of the law or rule, with a link, so that we can e-mail our representatives and cc the rule making group.

Then I'll also post on some other groups, including the local W A Price group.

Mac_

 

[Mac_]

I found a template on the opening post, and modified it slightly. The following is what I've sent to folks on my e-mail list and to some local pastured poultry groups. Please consider editing this e-mail as you see fit and passing it on.

Mac_

I just stumbled upon information on a new rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service to help communities in Florida and Texas control feral Muscovy duck populations. Unfortunately, it also appears to outlaw raising Muscovies for meat for one's own consumption. There is a good summary of this rule at: https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=304055&p=1

From what little that I've had the time to read, it does sound like George Allen, chief of the Migratory Bird Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service is giving consideration to revising this rule. I would like to see no new regulations placed on the raising of Muscovy ducks in areas where Muscovy ducks are not native.

Just google "hatcheries muscovy" to see how many hatcheries are selling Muscovy ducks. It should be obvious that the Muscovy has become domesticated, and should not be subject to the same rules as "wild" ducks.

Comments can be e-mailed to Mr. Allen [email protected]

It sounds like we can get this rule changed if enough people speak up.

Below is a template of a letter that I cut and pasted from the backyardchickens forum that you can easily edit send to your representatives and to Mr. Allen.

Mac_




Dear Rep/Senator XXXX

I am a resident of (state or congressional district goes here). I am contacting you in regards to the recent regulation by the Fish and Wildlife Service (CFR 21.54) regarding Muscovy Ducks. The following is a link to the regulation http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/reg2010/Muscovy%20Duck%20Final%20Rule%201%20March%202010.pdf.

This new regulation makes it illegal for private citizens or organizations to possess muscovy ducks. While I understand the need to pass regulations that help control the feral muscovy duck problem in some communities in the United States, I feel that this new regulation overextends the rights of the FWS in regards to private ownership of muscovy ducks. I would encourage you to google "hatcheries Muscovy" to see how many hatcheries are selling Muscovy ducks as a domesticated breed.

With the new regulation the following would no longer be permissible:

1. Owning muscovy ducks as pets. While it may seem odd that people would keep ducks as pets, there is a significant population in the US that does so. While we could have other ducks as pets, muscovy ducks tend to be more community friendly as they do not make loud vocalizations (quacks) that most other domestic ducks do.

2. Raising muscovy ducks for private consumption of meat or eggs. The new regulations only allows for possessing muscovy ducks for food production, but requires permits from the FWS. This effectively makes raising muscovy ducks impossible for non-business entities. As I'm sure you know, it is very important for the future of this country to develop sustainable food production. Backyard flocks of chickens and ducks, including muscovy ducks, can assist with sustainability as it allows for the use of residential land to produce food.

3. Raising muscovy ducks for competition. Muscovy ducks are a recognized breed by the American Poultry Associate (APA) and are used in competitions. The inability to breed muscovy ducks for any reason other than food production would take away the ability for breeders to continue breeding and showing muscovy ducks. I believe this flies in the face of one of the major tenets that this country is founded on - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I urge you to consider the detrimental effect the new regulations will have on your constituents and American citizens as a whole. I hope your conscience will guide you towards modifying this regulation to restore a small amount of freedom to duck loving citizens of our great nation.

I strongly urge that this rule be modified so that it will impose no new regulations on anyone raising Muscovy ducks in and state where wild Muscovy ducks are not native.

I have also sent a copy of this letter to **insert your senators and representative here)*** as well as members of the House Committee on Natural Resources, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I am a registered voter and will take your actions on this matter into account when voting.

Sincerely,
xxxxx

 

[Danaus29]

Fish and Wildlife has said they would like the revised ruling to be non restrictive to domestic Muscovy owners and asked for suggestions as to how the revision should be worded. This is our chance to help write a law.

So, what would you like it to say? This is a statement I would like to have included:
Domestic utility Muscovy in private ownership are to be excluded from these regulations except as follows;
private owners that dump their or others ducks or other people who dump or release domestic Muscovies onto public or other privately held lands without the landowners permission shall be guilty of animal cruelty and charged according to local animal cruelty laws.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Mac_]

Quote:
I like your suggestion. I have dealt with federal and state regulators and the devil is usually in the details and definitions. "Domestic" and "utility" would have to be well defined.

How about: "Domestic Muscovy shall be defined as any Muscovy that was owned prior to March 31, 2010 and it's offspring."

Does private exclude a corporation or LLC (such as hatcheries)? It might, so I deleted it in the above definition.

How about: "Owners of domestic Muscovies that knowingly and purposefully abandon a Muscovy on public or private lands without the landowners permission shall be guilty of..."

I do not think that they have jurisdiction over domesticated animals. If this is true, then it may just be as simple as convincing them that Muscovies in private ownership (at least in all areas where they are not native), be exempt from the rule.