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

[Mac_]

Can you help with taking a survey?

We know that there are problem populations of Muscovy ducks in Florida.

Do any of you know of any problem populations in your area?

Are we able to do a survey on this forum?

Maybe we could start a thread about this specific topic. We could all call our local state wildlife office and ask this question and post the answers, listing who you talked to, and their response.

What do you think?

Mac_

 

[D'Angelo N Va.]

Mac, I think it sounds like a good idea. We can not just lie down and take this like a rolled over on it's back submissive puppy.

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

Quote:
Dr Allen told me in March that there were only two areas with problem feral Muscovy Ducks....Florida and Chicago.So therefore the USFW must prohibit us in Arkansas from hatching any. I can fully understand their logic. Perhaps we should also prohibit all reproduction of cattle so that no cattle become feral and poop on any golf courses! Then we can go after those other troublesome folks: those who believe in the Constitution!

 

[PamelaJaye]

I live in Florida.

I have, since 2007 read articles about invasions and takeovers of Muscovy Ducks in Kenneth City (8 miles away) while in my neighborhood (between Seminole and Largo) we have not gotten past 14 ducks in the past three years that I have been aware of the Muscovy Invasion. Many die for whatever reason. In 2004, where I worked in St. Pete, a mama Muscovy gave birth to more than 10 and only 3 of them survived, to our knowledge.

So yes - in some areas they are over run (though I haven't heard of this since 07 - try the St Pete Times) while other areas can't even keep a reasonable amount (and that's the wild birds - we are not aware that any of these ducks were bred and released. They wander the neighborhood in the spring and summer, they mate on our driveways and we never see their babies unless we go down to the pond at the end of the street. The most we've had wandering our neighborhood begging for handouts was 6 in 2007, only 4 last spring, and currently we are not seeing any. The neighbors we speak to say they miss them (although this summer we had dumped pet bunnies).

I have a house duck, half Muscovy, from the crop of 2007 (some teen boys kidnapped her and then thought better and dropped her on me). She's three now, sitting on my bed in her diaper and drifting off to sleep.

I'm not sure I am on the list - I sent an email to Dr Allen but never got a reply.

Even if my baby is grandfathered in (and I don't trust the government after a veterinarian confiscated my sparrow in Mass. and I was later told that sparrows were "exempt from protection as they were NOT idigenous but brought over from England" and therefore it was NOT illegal to have him/her - too bad I found out 7 years too late - but it's just the opposite of the Muscovy thing -


just way too confusing

Sparrows are non-idigenous thus NOT protected and we can't have them
but
Muscovies are non-indigenous NOT protected and we can't have them?)

even if they say it's okay cause I already had her - they don't even know their own rules, as evidenced by the sparrow incident. And our neighborhood beggars are as much a part of the ambiance here as the egrets that also roam our lawns.
They should only be "dealt with" if they are obviously taking over, as they did in Kenneth City.

And of course I cannot find the article from sptimes Sept 19, 2007 regarding the ducks, I can only find the letters to the editor in reply to it.

Apparently there was also an issue in Dunedin - April 23, 2010 - http://www.tampabay.com/news/humani...der-what-will-become-of-muscovy-ducks/1089577

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

APA Arkansas State Meet

Grand Champion Waterfowl

Chocolate Muscovy, Old Drake, Old Dan

Owned by the Jim Hall family, Monticello, Arkansas

Pictured: Nicole and Jim Hall with "Old Dan".

 

[Mac_]

The new rules have been published for public comment.

You can only submit comments that will be considered as outlined in the proposed rules.

Link to text version of proposed rule: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-23139.htm

Link to PDF version of proposed rule: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-23139.pdf

We will need to refer back to 21.13 for the marking options. Link to 21.13: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/octqtr/pdf/50cfr21.14.pdf

My primary objection is as follows. Muscovy have been domesticated since the 1500s. They are domesticated livestock. As such, they are not subject to these marking requirements.

We have until Dec 30, 2010 to send our comments. I suggest that we do our homework first, so that we can present well thought out arguments.

Mac


From the proposed rules:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037.
• U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-
MB-2010-0037; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203-
1610.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on http://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information that you provide. See the
Public Comments section below for
more information.

Public Comments
We request comments or suggestions
on this proposed rule from any
interested parties. You may submit your
comments and materials concerning this
proposed rule by one of the methods
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will
not consider comments sent by e-mail or
fax or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
If you submit a comment via http://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). You may obtain copies of our
previous actions concerning this subject
by mail (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) or by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov.

From 21.13, marking options:

(b) All mallard ducks possessed in
captivity, without a permit, shall have
been physically marked by at least one
of the following methods prior to 6
weeks of age and all such ducks
hatched, reared, and retained in captivity
thereafter shall be so marked
prior to reaching 6 weeks of age.
(1) Removal of the hind toe from the
right foot.
(2) Pinioning of a wing: Provided,
That this method shall be the removal
of the metacarpal bones of one wing or
a portion of the metacarpal bones
which renders the bird permanently incapable
of flight.
(3) Banding of one metatarsus with a
seamless metal band.
(4) Tattooing of a readily discernible
number or letter or combination thereof
on the web of one foot.​

 

[matthewschickens]

I'm posting so that it will show up in my list so that I can keep on top of it.

I'm really against it and would like to help but I can't keep ducks at the moment...

 

[txcarl1258]

So basically they are saying that we can keep and breed the muscovy ducks as long as they are not sold as "pets" and that they are not released into the wild? Am I reading this correctly or did I misunderstand something? What do they mean by properly marked?

 

[Mac_]

"Marked" is one of the 4 options in the long post above.

This may not seem like much in and of itself, but I strongly oppose it as an infringement on the fundamental right to farm and feed oneself.

Mac

 

[HallFamilyFarm]

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...iv8&view=text&node=50:6.0.1.1.4.2.1.3&idno=50

§ 21.13 Permit exceptions for captive-reared mallard ducks.
Captive-reared and properly marked mallard ducks, alive or dead, or their eggs may be acquired, possessed, sold, traded, donated, transported, and disposed of by any person without a permit, subject to the following conditions, restrictions, and requirements:

(a) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the taking of live mallard ducks or their eggs from the wild.

(b) All mallard ducks possessed in captivity, without a permit, shall have been physically marked by at least one of the following methods prior to 6 weeks of age and all such ducks hatched, reared, and retained in captivity thereafter shall be so marked prior to reaching 6 weeks of age.

(1) Removal of the hind toe from the right foot.

(2) Pinioning of a wing: Provided, That this method shall be the removal of the metacarpal bones of one wing or a portion of the metacarpal bones which renders the bird permanently incapable of flight.

(3) Banding of one metatarsus with a seamless metal band.

(4) Tattooing of a readily discernible number or letter or combination thereof on the web of one foot.

(c) When so marked, such live birds may be disposed of to, or acquired from, any person and possessed and transferred in any number at any time or place: Provided, That all such birds shall be physically marked prior to sale or disposal regardless of whether or not they have attained 6 weeks of age.

(d) When so marked, such live birds may be killed, in any number, at any time or place, by any means except shooting. Such birds may be killed by shooting only in accordance with all applicable hunting regulations governing the taking of mallard ducks from the wild: Provided, That such birds may be killed by shooting, in any number, at any time, within the confines of any premises operated as a shooting preserve under State license, permit, or authorization; or they may be shot, in any number, at any time or place, by any person for bona fide dog training or field trial purposes: Provided further, That the provisions:

(1) The hunting regulations (part 20 of this subchapter), with the exception of §20.108 (Nontoxic shot zones), and

(2) The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (duck stamp requirement) shall not apply to shooting preserve operations as provided for in this paragraph, or to bona fide dog training or field trial operations.

(e) At all times during possession, transportation, and storage until the raw carcasses of such birds are finally processed immediately prior to cooking, smoking, or canning, the marked foot or wing must remain attached to each carcass: Provided, That persons, who operate game farms or shooting preserves under a State license, permit, or authorization for such activities, may remove the marked foot or wing when either the number of his State license, permit, or authorization has first been legibly stamped in ink on the back of each carcass and on the container in which each carcass is maintained, or each carcass is identified by a State band on leg or wing pursuant to requirements of his State license, permit, or authorization. When properly marked, such carcasses may be disposed of to, or acquired from, any person and possessed and transported in any number at any time or place.

[40 FR 28459, July 7, 1975, as amended at 46 FR 42680, Aug. 24, 1981; 54 FR 36798, Sept. 5, 1989]