Correct me if I am wrong but many owl species and other raptors were not added to the MBTA until 1974, not 1918 as suggested in the previous post.
-----Original Message----- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hendrickson Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment Hello: All birds including owls are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html) Specific provisions in the statute include: - Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C. 703) HF 2582 regardless of the way it is written now or what changes Michael Furtman and the DNR make today or tomorrow to the bill it is adding more restrictions on how we observe owls when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has been protecting owls in Minnesota for a very very long time. Great Gray Owls, Snowy Owls, Boreal Owls and Northern Hawk Owls populations have not suffered because who is feeding them a mouse for observation, images, research and education!! There is also not one research paper to prove that feeding an owl a mouse is harmful to them maybe for some it is unethical but that is another topic. Why is the DNR interested in adding more protection to one group of birds based on no research or data when the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 has been doing a great job already protecting our birds in Minnesota? Should not the real fight be in regards to the owl's welfare is to use all this energy and protect their habitat from logging and development in Minnesota? Currently in Sax-Zim Bog all the bog woods along the Admiral Rd where known Great Gray Owls are nesting currently will be up for logging bids within 10 years from now! Should not the DNR use all their influence and muscle to protect nesting habitats of owls in MN instead of wasting their time and energy to preventing a handful of photographers in MN to feed an owl a mouse? Should not that be the real fight? Like I said the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 is currently protecting owls and all songbirds that reside in MN. Adding more restrictions like this is not the fight I want the DNR to focus on. I would prefer to see our public servants like the DNR be more proactive and use their energy and time and protect habitat NOT pushing a bill that has no effects on the owl's welfare. Like I mentioned in my last post to this listserv, I am currently monitoring an owl's nest in Minnesota. This owl from what I have been told, has been fed numerous times off and on in the last 4 months. ( Mid December to Mid March ). When I apply all the claims and reasons why feeding an owl is detrimental to the health to an owl and how feeding owls will effect their behavior, well this owl should of died long time ago but yet it is currently defending a nesting territory, feeding his mate who is on the nest and actively catching live mice. I have been observing the effects of owls after they been given free handouts all winter season during last several years and I have yet to see any harm to them health wise and behavior wise. If the DNR wants to protect the owls from this kind of activity by a handful of people in MN then why not broaden it to all raptors? Some people in Minnesota toss fish out to Bald Eagles along the Mississippi River for images. Some people put mice out to Rough-legged Hawks and other raptors for photos. Why not broaden it too all raptors in MN? Why just owls? Again this is not a bill we need to protect the owl's welfare, the real fight is protecting habitat for the owls in MN. The time is coming when birders driving up the Admiral Rd in Sax-Zim Bog will be able to view Byrn's Greenhouse on CR 7 by looking to the east and birders will be able to wave at other birders on the McDavitt Rd by looking to the west with no black spruces, tamaracks and cedars obstructing their view. Great Gray Owls (the mascot of Sax-Zim Bog) will be driven out of their habitat because all the trees they use to nest in or roost in are all logged out. YES people, all the bog habitat along the Admiral Road on both sides will be open for logging bids in 10 years from now! So while Michael Furtman and the DNR can dance around and celebrate the passing of this needless bill, the Great Gray Owls, N. Hawk Owls, N. Saw Whet Owls, and Long-eared Owls will not be around for anyone to view or feed them a mouse. Again where is the real fight? This is a needless bill that will have no effect on the owl's welfare! Call your local representative and tell him/her to vote NO on HF 2582. Thank You On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Debbie Petersen <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > I passed your concerns on to the amendment's author, Michael Furtman. > > He spoke with the DNR today, with whom he has been working closely on > this amendment. They have decided to slightly change the wording so it > obviously applies only to visual luring. > ------------------------------- > Debbie Petersen > Laporte, MN > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > -- *Mike Hendrickson* *Mike Hendrickson Guiding <http://mikehendricksonguiding.com>* *Sax-Zim Bog <http://www.sax-zimbog.com>* ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
