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

[Buster52]

Quote:
I don't see that being a workable solution. It's against the law now to release dogs and cats, and people do it all the time.

I don't believe the ban at a retail outlet would much affect those who raise them for meat, eggs, showing, or are serious pet owners, which I thought was the complaint in this thread.

 

[muscovychef]

Just got pff the phone with Hoffman hatchery, As you know white muscovy is their main seller. They are now getting involved . If we can prove that muscovy are a valuable asset to !!! that it will cause harm to those that make a living from them. This is a help to the cause. Im on my way to the hospital now.

GET INVOLVED CALL TALK ....... petitions and emails are paperwork trails. How many do you scan or delete a day. YOU REMEMBER A CALL A VOICE .........
Again this is not like any other case mallard etc. We are dealing with a muscovy invasion on people ...... YOU CAN BET THESE PEOPLE CALL TO COMPLAIN.......

Ron and his crimminal muscovy

 

[muscovychef]

yes but if they banned dogs or cats there would be an out cry.

muscovy has had no voice until now , we are their voice. come on if you cant buy muscovy how can you get them?? If i have them i have to eat them with this plan they will die off. and only commercial factories of farming will have them. Muscovy cant migrate with out human aide owners are seen as that ..............

 

[Cottage Rose]

=muscovychef]Hey cottage you got kicked off because you know what your talking about.
You my dear are not a LOON .

Hey Ron emailing you on this.​

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
I don't see that being a workable solution. It's against the law now to release dogs and cats, and people do it all the time.

I don't believe the ban at a retail outlet would much affect those who raise them for meat, eggs, showing, or are serious pet owners, which I thought was the complaint in this thread.

There is no real penalty to releasing cats/dogs. The current regulations pertaining to other waterfowl work quite well (when the penalties include a 10K fine and 6 months in jail, people take notice). Many, if not most poultry owners get their initial and re-stock from their local feed store. Ordering from a hatchery requires the purchase of large numbers--more than many folks want to purchase or raise, regardless of their reasoning.

 

[Nifty-Chicken]

Quote:
What!?!? There are peeps that don't know about BYC!?!?! Well, we're obviously all not doing our jobs well enough!!!

It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to setup an account here, but even if they don't, all the information is 100% publicly available... they just wouldn't be able to comment. If anybody has problems signing up or can't login, they should contact us here.

 

[Buster52]

Quote:
Then let them buy from breeders. I believe the consensus here is that this problem comes from the casual Muscovy owner. Initial purchases of these things at the feed store are likely to be just that, in addition to being impulse buys. And current owners who would buy their restocks from the feed store aren't likely all that serious, either. They of all people should know the value of purchasing good stock from breeders.

Look, y'all aren't going to be able to avoid restrictions on sale. The feds have come to the conclusion that this is a harmful, invasive species that needs serious control. Your best hope is to come up with something that is going to respect the serious owner and breeder, while meeting the feds' need to control it.

You are not going to get off scot fee. Find something you can live with and suggest that.

 

[1acrefarm]

Looks like they are legal for food purposes. Keeping and selling them as egg layers is a food purpose.

 

[Dances with Ducks]

Buster's suggestion might just create a demand for hatcherys that do small orders, like Ideal, to carry muscovy. I also like the idea an information sheet about wild release penalties, and requiring buyers to sign them. Just so no lists of buyers are kept. We will have to make some reasonable concessions, my bottom line is no list of owners filed in some kind of data base.

 

[Dances with Ducks]

Looking over the new regs again, apparently these federal agencies must make certain "determinations" before they issue them. For instance that they do not have an annual effect of more than $100 million on the economy. Another determination is "Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues."
IMHO this raises novel legal and policy issues.



Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order 12866.
OMB bases its determination upon the
following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government,
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions,
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients, and
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.