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

[DUccleDude]

Today my friend found out that the ducks had been dumped there in December and his neighbor(older couple) could not catch them, so they called the DEC to come catch them. Sorry for the misinformation.

 

[Buttercup Chillin]

I just thought it would be prudent for Backyard Chickens to inform all Muscovy Duck Owners and potential owners of the new Federal Law that prohibits Muscovies being kept as pets as of 3/1/2010, unless you lawfully acquired Muscovies prior to 3/31/2010. This law is in effect now, even though it is not yet being inforced. It will be enforced by local agencies of each state, just as the other regulations are. It might also be noted that you must have a waterfowl sale and disposal permit to sell, trade, donate or otherwise dispose of ...or their eggs. There are a lot of people on this websight doing so illegally, that I am sure don't know about this law.

The regulations use the terms such as captive-bred birds or their progeny, not Domestic Muscovies. It is very specific. I do not agree that the Domestic Muscovy of any name will be withdrawn from this regulation. Actually, they were not aware of just how many individuals owned Muscovies for Meat and as Pets. They were under the impression that the problem of Ferrel Muscovies came from birds that excaped from Commerial breeders and Commercial Meat raising. Now the agency is aware of Muscovies being used extensivly as Pets and so as being released (discarded) on public properties. I'm sure they will address this with even more stringent rules, not an exclusion from the rules. If you search around the fws.gov website for the different laws on waterfowl the rules for Muscovies and Mallards are every similar and infact the regulations for keeping meat birds are the same.

We have 4 choices in how to identify and track and report our Muscovies and some of us need to start now. As my Ducklings will be 6 weeks old soon, I will order bans for my Birds, and start filling out the Waterfowl Sale & Disposal - Annual Report so all my Duckies are in a row with regulations. That is if I decide to even keep raising Muscovies.

Really, this is no different that other livestock, we ear tagged all cattle and tracked them, my uncle tagged his sheep, and another tagged his hogs. Now we start tagging Muscovies.

To bad they don't insist that any Muscovy being sold for pets must be a Muscovy cross, either a Mule or Henney. That would pretty much take care of the ferrel Muscovy problem in a very short time, within 8 years.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Quote:
The American Poultry association and International Waterfowl Breeders Association are working together with USFWS to create an admendment to the regulations to cover Exhibition type birds. Sadly, there may be no distinction made for "pet" quality. The feral population is made up solely of discarded "pets". The USFWS will most likely not leave any wiggle room for pets. They have already made room for meat type Muscovy Ducks. Most Exhibition Muscovy would fall under meat type.

As for BYC getting the word out: I personally think BYC has done an excellent job in spreading the word. There will always be some who have not heard. Not all are on this or any message board. This thread has tried to keep all of BYC informed. The OP has been very helpful in taking new information and posting it into post #1. At this point, we just have to wait and see.

Oh, as for mules or Muscovy crosses: That is the problem. The crosses are their greatest concern. So Muscovy crosses have intentionally been included in the regulation.

Dr. Allen has said if any officer tries to enforce the regulations that are on hold, call his office and he will speak with the officer.

 

[thkosan]

I can't emphasize this enough:

We have to call the various government entities listed in the earlier posts if you want to insure that pet and farm-dwelling Muscovy ducks are included in the amendment. Get the word out and make your voice heard!

I sent out a press release to the national and local news media about CFR 21.54 and how it affects Muscovy duck owners. Yesterday the Houston Chronicle (my local paper) spent half the day on my farm interviewing me for a print article and taking video footage for an on-line article. You may consider doing the same by contacting your local news media.

The more noise we Muscovy owners make, the more likely it will be that we are heard and our opinions addressed.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Thank you Duck_feeder for keeping us all updated in the OP, post #1. All can read this post at img/smilies/thumbsup.gif" alt="thumbsup" />

">https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=304055&p=1


Quote:
3/12/10 update:

Here's a post by TomNY that outlines the steps the FWS must go through in order to change the regulations:
I talked to Dr. Allen. Three things must happen to get the regulation changed. First the FWS must have proof that there is such a thing as domestic Muscovies. The IWBA and APA are working on this. Jim Konecny left me a message yesterday saying the IWBA response was sent. The APA Standard Revision Committee expected to have their information sent this week. Secondly public input must be received by Dr. Allen. Only fourteen responses were received during the comment period. [email protected] is the email address he gave me to have comments sent to him. This is important. Dr. Allen wants input. Third, once the distinction is made between feral domestic Muscovies and invasive wild Muscovies the states with a feral Muscovy problem will have to design a plan to deal with it on a state-wide level. I got the impression that if things go well it may be possible to have Domestic Muscovies exempted from the regulations. Tom

Here's another update from 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.

3/10/10 update:

The FWS has been contacted multiple times on this matter and are working to develop a solution that will balance the needs of everyone. The APA and IWBA are in communication with Dr George Allen (Chief of Permits and Regulations branch of the Division of Migratory Birds Management of the Fish and Wildlife Service).

At this time, further contact directly with Dr George Allen is unnecessary and likely to only reduce his efficiency in dealing with this matter. I highly recommend that we cease contacting Dr Allen directly but continue sending letters to representatives and senators to ensure that we have their support (changing the regulations this close to when they go into effect my require their intervention).

I will be updating this post with more information as I have time

All information here is based on my understanding of what I have read. I very well could be incorrect in my interpretation - do not assume that everything I have posted is accurate. I urge everyone to read the new regulations for themselves and draw their own conclusions.


IMPORTANT UPDATE

George Allen, Chief of the Migratory Birds division at Fish and Wildlife Service, has been contacted by Parrotchick (one of the forum members here at BYC).

George has stated that FWS is willing to amend the regulations, but needs to ensure it is done legally. He is looking into what the correct protocol is for amending the regulations in the period of time between issuing the final ruling and the date it goes into effect. FWS must also take into account that the groups pushing for this new regulation want it passed soon so they can deal with the feral populations.

George stated that backyard/private ownership of muscovies for meat and/or eggs is reasonable to add to the regulation, but not pet ownership. I assume this would also allow for breeding of muscovies wherever local laws allow it.

Why was this new regulation created?

In prior years Muscovy ducks were not considered a native species in the US. As such they had NO protection by federal law or international agreements. Nuisance muscovies were dealt with by local government and were considered an invasive species by the federal authorities (FWS).

Muscovy ducks have naturally expanded their natural habitat to include areas of southern Texas. Because these are believed to be wild birds with only wild bird ancestors, they are now a native bird within the US (but limited to only 3 counties in Texas). From what I understand, they were studied to determine if they truly were wild birds or really feral birds.

Because they are now a native species in the US, the Migratory Bird Treat Act of 1918 applies to them in the US and they legally fall under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Bird division).

The MBTA and federal regulations makes it impossible for local governments to legally eliminate nuisance birds. In order to give local governments the legal authority to deal with feral populations, the regulations over muscovies needed to be added to the current migratory bird regulations.

The requests for the regulation changes were made by the local governments at the request of the affected citizens. This was not a case of creating regulations for the sake for creating regulations - the FWS was reacting to the requests of local governments and citizens.

In August 2008, the FWS drafted a proposed change to the regulations and requested input by the community. They followed the legal requirements for making the proposal public. It is the responsibility of the citizens to respond in a timely manner if they want to prevent a regulation from passing. It is unfortunate that the muscovy owning community heard about the regulation much later, but this is not due to underhanded tactics by the government.

The FWS was not aware of the citizens that raised muscovy ducks for personal consumption or shows. While it is questionable on whether or not they should have done more research into the matter, that is immaterial at this point. The proposal from August 2008 and associated request for responses should have brought this to their attention, but nobody took the time to contact them through official channels. Due to this joint failure on the parts of both the FWS and muscovy community, the regulations were passed without taking these communities into account.

The regulations were amended to give the local governments the authority to handle non-native populations of muscovies. The restriction on ownership and release of domesticated muscovies was included to help reduce the introduction of muscovies into the wild as an invasive species. The populations that naturally expanded their range are protected by federal law.

Can't we just ignore the new regulation? They can't really enforce it!
OR
This is unconstitutional, we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get what we want

Yes, you can probably just ignore the new regulations and "get away with it."

However, this is no different than ignoring the speed limit when driving. You can get away with it most of the time, but you have no legal recourse if you get a ticket for speeding. Same would apply to owning muscovy ducks. If they take away your ducks or issue a fine, you really can't do anything about it.

Whether or not the FWS really has the authority to enact this regulation is a separate issue altogether. That fight should be separated from this one if you want to be taken seriously. It is not human nature to take someone seriously when they are told that they need to change a rule because they didn't have the right to make the rule in the first place. Think about it this way: if you don't have the authority to create a rule, then by that same argument you don't have the authority to reverse it either. So why even bother?

An organized and rational approach to changing the regulations is in everyone's long term best interest. Emotional responses or arguments based on more abstract concepts only hinder the ability to work cooperatively with the appropriate authorities.

The Fish and Wildlife Service passed a new regulation that is effective March 31, 2010, that makes it illegal to own or possess muscovy ducks in the US except for food production.
They will grandfather any muscovies owned prior to 3/31 but will not allow breeding.

I incorrectly noted that this was a new law in my original post. This is actually a new regulation which does not get passed the same way as laws. The FWS did not try to slip this under our noses. They followed the correct process and this regulation was open for public comments since August 2008.

Details here:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/R...2010/Muscovy Duck Final Rule 1 March 2010.pdf
If that link isn't working for you, go to the Migratory Bird section of the Fish and Wildlife Services website. There is a direct link from there:
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

Here is a link to the original 2008 proposal on the updated regulations:
http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2008/E8-19550.html

Basically, muscovies are considered an invasive species so they are trying to reduce/eliminate the feral muscovy populations.

Directly from the document listed above:

(g) You may not acquire or possess
live muscovy ducks, their carcasses or
parts, or their eggs, except to raise them
to be sold as food, and except that you
may possess any live muscovy duck that
you lawfully acquired prior to March
31, 2010. If you possess muscovy ducks
on that date, you may not propagate
them or sell or transfer them to anyone
for any purpose, except to be used as
food. You may not release them to the
wild, sell them to be hunted or released
to the wild, or transfer them to anyone
to be hunted or released to the wild.

Background info

The Fish and Wildlife Service considers Muscovies to be an invasive species. In order to protect the native migratory waterfowl species, they are trying to reduce the feral muscovy population in the US.

These new rules will go into effect on 3/31/10. The FWS requested responses from the public in 2008. From what I read, this was not widely known about. One of the posters in this thread contact the APA secretary who did not know about these new rules. This is NOT due to underhanded tactics by the government – they followed the correct protocols. This is an unfortunate side effect of large government inefficiencies.

The protection of migratory birds is part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 . This is an international treaty that the USA is an original signee to.

FWS DOES have the authority to regulate muscovy ducks. Muscovy ducks naturally expanded their range to include parts of southern Texas which apparently makes them legally migratory birds. However, the migratory status is irrelevant. The FWS has authority over all native birds in the US (which the Muscovy is now considered to be). Arguing jurisdiction of the FWS over muscovies is a fruitless endeavor – we should be concerned with amending the regulation to account for personal use.

The new rules by the FWS are meant to give the local authorities the ability to deal with feral muscovy populations. It allows them to exterminate the feral population and help prevent the release of domesticated muscovies by making it illegal to possess muscovies or their eggs. The FWS stated that the law was updated at the request of state and local governments. Areas such as Florida have severe muscovy duck problems and this update to the regulations would allow local governments to legally deal with them. Please remember that muscovies are protected under MBTA, so this regulation is necessary to give local authorities the legal right to control feral populations.

There are a couple exceptions to this rule:
1. Any privately owned muscovies in your possession prior to 3/31/2010 may be legally kept.
1a. You may NOT transfer ownership of the muscovies - not even giving them away for free - unless you have a permit filed with FWS.
1b. You may NOT propagate (breed) your muscovies

2. Muscovies can be kept and propagated for food purposes.
2a. The new rules do not explicitly explain what the new rules are. (meat only, eggs only, or meat and eggs)
2b. The rules suggest that a permit is needed but is not clear on the matter.
2c. Based on a literal reading of the rules and the responses from the FWS, this exception is most likely not for backyard ducks.

Previously the release of muscovies into the wild was made illegal by local laws. This new law makes it illegal at a federal level. I hope that we all can agree that this is one of the few good parts of the updated law (communities without any laws against the release of muscovies into the wild do not need to pass new laws).

The FWS have suggested that enforcement will be handled by local authorities and they have no intention of checking our private property for illegal ducks.

Who to contact to change the FWS regulations

If you want to have this law changed to allow for non-meat use, contact your Senators and representative. Even if you do not beleive they will do something, you should contact them anyway so there is a paper trail of support for repealing this law.

To find your representative's contact info, use the search in the upper left hand corner of this page:
http://www.house.gov/

To find your Senators' contact info, use the search in the upper right hand corner of this page:
http://www.senate.gov/

If anybody knows which congressional committee oversees the FWS, please post that info

An online petition has been started. If you want to sign it, go here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/481112174

Here are some additional people to contact in Congress:

House Committee on Natural Resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Natural_Resources

If your representative is on this committee, point that out in your letter.
Also send a letter to:
Nick Rahall (Chairman of the committee)
Doc Hastings (ranking minority member for the committee)


Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Environment_and_Public_Works
If your Senator is on this committee, point that out in your letter.
Also send a letters to:
Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the committee)
James Inhofe (ranking minority member for the committee)
Benjamin Cardin (Water and Wildlife subcommittee chairman)
Mike Crapo (Water and Wildlife subcommittee ranking minority member)

The Fish and Wildlife Services reports to the Department of the Interior (Presidential Cabinet Department). You can contact the current secretary with complaints:
Ken Salazar (Secretary of the Interior)

The following contact information was provided by FWS in the FWS rules document I cited above:
[email protected]
[email protected]

Because the FWS is leaving the enforcement of the regulations to local governments, it would be beneficial to contact your local government on this matter. If you do this, please request that the local government not waste any resources enforcing the regulations (except for the illegal release of muscovies). Do not ask them to ignore the FWS regulations or create laws that would make exceptions locally as this is not likely to work and may actually encourage them to enforce the new regulations

Additional contact info (thanks to Downhome)

Ken Salazar , Secretary of the Interior

DC Office:
702 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0606
DC Phone: 202-224-5852
DC Fax: 202-228-5036
Web Email
Website

District Office- Colorado Springs:
3 South Tejon, Suite 300B
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Phone: 719-328-1100
Fax: 719-328-1129

District Office- Denver:
2300 15th Street, Suite 450
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-455-7600
Fax: 303-455-8851

District Address - Durango:
835 East 2nd Avenue, Suite 203
Durango, CO 81301
Phone: 970-259-1710
Fax: 970-259-9789

District Office- Fort Collins:
11 Old Town Square, Suite 260
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Phone: 970-224-2200
Fax: 970-224-2205

District Office- Grand Junction:
400 Rood Avenue, Suite 213
Grand Junction, CO 81501
Phone: 970-241-6631
Fax: 970-241-8313

District Office- Pueblo:
129 West B Street
Pueblo, CO 81003
Phone: 719-542-7550
Fax: 719-542-7555

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240

http://www.fws.gov/duspit/contactus.htm

the guy in charge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Director Rowan Gould and of course I couldnt turn up a phone number!

More from Jimsfarmstand (who also took the initiative to contact the APA and inform them of this new regulation)

Spoke with both US Senator Blanch Lincoln (Arkansas) and US Senator Mike Pryor (Arkansas) offices today. They both looked up the regulation while I was on the phone. Senator Pryor's office needs a hand written request from me. Lincoln's office is looking into it. Senator Lincoln is chair of the Senate Agricultural committee! Everyone should call Senator Lincoln's office and insist action! She is more able to assist than almost anyone else.
​

Here is a letter template you can use to contact your representative and senators:

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.

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.

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 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

Here is another letter drafted by Dances with Ducks if you prefer this one:

I am contacting you in regards to the recent regulation by the Fish and Wildlife Service (CFR 21.54) regarding Muscovy Ducks. This regulation creates dismaying legal and policy issues. There have been people raising Muscovy for personal use for generations, and there are a fair number of breeders for whom the Muscovy is a substantial part of their business. As the regulation is written the breeders they will suddenly be devastated unless they are selling only to properly permitted agribusinesses. Many unique strains and colors of the Muscovy have been developed by fanciers of this breed and have been included in large poultry shows for decades. This wonderful part of our American culture will be lost. Keeping livestock requires regularly bringing in new bloodlines to keep inbreeding from damaging the lines, breeders need to be able to freely purchase, choose and cull in order to maintain good breeding stock.
The situation this new regulation suddenly presents to tens of thousands of people with an interest in the Muscovy duck is astounding! Private owners will be denied the opportunity as they have enjoyed for many years to be able to take advantage of the unique characteristics of this breed. The growing urban farming movement is quickly realizing the benefit of the Muscovy’s unusually quiet nature. Muscovy have a particular value in incubating other breeds of waterfowl as they can incubate as many as three clutches a year, many people utilize them for this quality alone. Their exceptionally ability to eradicate mosquitoes is highly appreciated. They are fine egg layers with a unique protein type needed by many individuals with allergy issues. Because they are considered to be the best meat duck by far, it is very important that people should be continued the right to raise them for their own food purposes. The many overall useful qualities of this duck create a strongly unique value to a small farmer.
Addressing feral invasive populations is and should be within the purview of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Addressing domestic populations should absolutely not be the concern of FWS. What is an invasive in one place is not necessarily in another. Regulate release into the wild in areas where they are invasive, not maintaining them in home flocks. Domestically bred Muscovy will not survive in climates with colder winters without help from humans. Regulations restricting ownership in these regions of the country are not reasonable.
In order to mitigate the invasive species concerns regarding the Muscovy duck and yet retain the property rights of American citizens, I adamantly request that the regulations be rewritten in a manner that will require that purchasers sign a dated statement acknowledging that release into the wild is prohibited; that doing so can result in considerable penalties. Also included in the rewritten regulation should be a requirement that states with invasive feral populations must institute a Muscovy hunting season as they can with other species of birds. Considering the enormous and unprecedented impact upon private livestock ownership, restrictions on purchase or ownership of Muscovy duck beyond these areas are beyond the reasonable purview of FWS
​

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Quote:
Not trying to start a fight, BUT IT IS THE PET POPULATION THAT HAS CAUSED THIS ISSUE

Folks buy a cute pet duck. He grows up into this:

They no longer have room for it, so they drive down the road and release it at a local park, "So all can enjoy it". The feral Muscovy were pet Muscovy. We caused this problem by selling ducks to folks just for pets. Same issue with Easter chicks and unwanted puppies and kittens. I started on this thread on day three or four. Have read every posting. Spoken with Dr Allen twice and his assistant once. They fully understand what we are asking for. They see legitamate use for meat and exhibition. They also see the unwanted pets that are now feral. Maybe we should sell with a contract similar to a puppy contract. If you can not keep the Muscovy you will return it to the breeder.

Everyone should read post #1 at https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=304055&p=1

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

From http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/FactSheets/Muscovy%20Fact%20Sheet%203-31-2010.pdf

MUSCOCVY DUCK AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule adding the muscovy duck (Cairina
moschata) to the List of Migratory Birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA). In addition, a final rule was published restricting certain activities with muscovy
ducks and establishing a Control Order to manage feral populations. The final rules were
published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2010 (Federal Register Volume 75, pages 9282-
9322). The questions and answers below summarize how the regulatory changes affect activities
with muscovy ducks. For more information, refer to the final rules at
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/index.html.

1. Why was the muscovy duck added to the List of Migratory Bird List? The muscovy
duck is native to Mexico, Central and South America. However, it has recently expanded its
range from Mexico to Hidalgo, Starr, and Zapata counties in south Texas. As a result of this
natural expansion into the United States, the species is now considered native and has been
added to the list of species protected under the MBTA (50 CFR 10.13).

2. The muscovy duck occurs in many areas outside of south Texas. Is it protected in these
areas? Yes. The muscovy duck has been introduced through human intervention to many parts
of the United States where it is an exotic species. Even though these feral muscovy ducks bear
little physical resemblance to the muscovy duck in its native range, biologically they are still
Cairina moschata and thus are accorded the protection of the MBTA.

3. Muscovy ducks are widely raised for food and maintained as pets and show ducks. Are
these muscovies now protected? Yes, muscovy ducks are now subject to regulation wherever
found in the United States and its territories, whether in the wild or in captivity.

4. Do I need a migratory bird permit to raise and sell muscovy ducks now? No. Although
we amended the regulations at 50 CFR 21.14 and 21.25 to restrict possession and sale of
muscovy ducks, we will not restrict possession or sale, or issue permits for this species at this
time. As a result of information received since publication of the final rules, the Service has
decided to revise the regulations.

5. What activities are now restricted? To reduce their spread, the revision to 50 CFR 21.14(g)
prohibiting release of captive-bred muscovy ducks to the wild, including for hunting, will be
implemented.

6. Will the new Control Order be implemented? Yes. Simultaneous to the listing, we
published a Control Order at 50 CFR 21.54 that allows landowners, State, Federal and Tribal
agencies, and others to remove or destroy muscovy ducks, their nests, and eggs, anywhere
outside their natural range, without a federal migratory bird permit. Any muscovy duck removed
live under this order must be placed with a facility where it will be maintained under conditions
that will prevent escape to the wild, or it must be euthanized.

MUSCOCVY DUCK AND THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
2

7. Do federally licensed migratory bird rehabilitators have to euthanize sick, injured or
orphaned feral muscovy ducks brought to their facility? We discourage the return of feral
muscovies back to the wild. We encourage rehabilitators to euthanize them, place them with a
facility that will prevent their escape to the wild, or return them to the rescuer with advice that
muscovy ducks are an invasive species and should not be returned to the wild.

8. Why was the public not given an opportunity to comment on these regulations? The
Service published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to add the muscovy duck to the list of
migratory birds on August 24, 2006 (71 FR 50194) and proposed the Control Order and other
regulatory changes specifically for muscovy duck on August 22, 2009 (73 FR 49626). Both
proposals invited public comment, were featured on our website, and State wildlife agencies
were advised. However, although any member of the public could have commented, we were
unaware of the extent to which muscovies are maintained in captivity and did not know of any
organization to inform about the proposed changes. Therefore, many muscovy duck owners
likely were not aware of the proposal.

9. When do the new regulations take effect? The new regulations are effective March 31,
2010. However, regulations restricting possession and sale of muscovy ducks will not be
administered and permits will not be available because we plan to amend those regulations in the
near future.

10. Who can I contact if I have questions about the List or Control Orders? Contact your
Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. Addresses and phone numbers are located at
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mbpermits/Addresses.html

(3/31/2010)​

 

[thkosan]

The feral Muscovy population is not a problem across the US on every pond and lake. If it were, this law would make sense. But this is a local problem, mostly in specific areas within Florida, although certainly in some other communities in other states as well. Local problems should be dealt with locally and not with a federal blanket law such as this that makes Muscovy ownership in the entire country illegal. By extension of your argument, then perhaps it should also be illegal in the US to sell chicks at Easter or to sell eggs to schools that hatch chicks for educational purposes.

The answer is not to make Muscovy duck ownership illegal in the US. The answer is to let local authorities deal with local feral population issues, which may, in fact, include making ownership illegal in those communities (counties, cities, towns -- whatever geographic demarcation makes sense for that area) where the feral Muscovy duck population is an issue. Most communities have laws that limit pet ownership: more than three dogs in a particular county? The county will come knocking and enforce the law. This is one way in which the Muscovy problem should be handled. Alternatively, there could be a hunting season in those areas. Or, as you suggest, there could be a permit or contract that must be included with every Muscovy sale. Just as wineries cannot ship wine to certain cities or states, hatcheries could be limited to where they can ship Muscovy eggs or ducklings (such as NOT to Florida or certain zip codes within Florida). I'm not here to argue the validity of these suggestions; my point is simply that there are much better ways to solve the feral Muscovy duck population problem than making Muscovy duck ownership illegal in the entire country.

There are many more areas in the US where Muscovy ducks are desired and desirable than where they are not -- the feral population is limited to specific geographic areas.

What is going to happen due to the FWS Muscovy duck law is that Muscovy ducks that grace many, many people's lives are going to disappear from public and private lakes and ponds. People and hatcheries who support themselves and their farms by selling Muscovies as pets and their eggs for hatching are going to be in deep financial trouble -- that includes me and a lot of people on this forum.

The FWS law is the equivalent of bombing an entire city to kill a convict hiding in a single house.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Just spoke with Lewis ? at Arkansas Game & Fish. Until USFWS completes their regulation, they are doing nothing. And when the new regulation is completed, AGF wills till do nothing. He feels it is a local issue in isolated araes like Florida and in the three counties in Texas. No permit will be issued in Arkansas because no permit is needed in Arkansas.

 

[thkosan]

Tell Lewis that he is my hero! Hope there are more state Game and Fish folks like him.