Michigan Votes Forum

 this should have been done years ago.

crazycajun:

 this should have been done years ago.

I guess you think you don't need to explain to anyone why you think we should be able to capture birds of prey, but I think someone should at least try to explain how we have survived all these years without this ability. I like seeing Hawks and Eagles flying free.

 as do i, but i also like to see someone caring for a bird, and using it to hunt. and perhaps breeding some more birds to release back into the wild to increase their numbers.

no falconer kills the raptor he takes, they are always well cared for, and sometimes encouraged to breed.

taking a few birds from the wild to be allowed to HUNT FOR MAN (they hunt naturally, we just train them to share the meat) is not a bad thing. it is in HARMONY with nature. cultures from the beginning of time have birded, from the pharoes to the patriots and beyond.

perhaps you find hunting itself distastefull.

Not at all. Hunting is as natural for man as it is for Raptors.

My point was, this is a discussion forum. Your first comment on this bill left little to discuss, just the fact you were in favor of it, not a reason or information anyone else could use to make a judgement. 

My question to you is, why is a representative expending time and energy to pass a bill making a season to take raptors captive, when our state, and nation, has so many other pertinent issues that need to be addressed? I'd venture to say just a handful of people participate in the sport of falconry. Do you feel this representative is spending his time, and our money, wisely in Lansing? Or could I be wrong and falconry is a major source of jobs and income for Michigan? Please enlighten me, and others if this is the case.

 if every decision legislators made were predicated on whether or not it is a major source of jobs and income for michigan, the democrats would be the FIRST thrown out, but definately NOT the last.

now, SOME decisions lawmakers have to wrestle with are RIGHTS. decisions they make daily effect our rights. some RECOGNIZE rights, others take rights away.

SOME decisions lawmakers make have to do with FREEDOMS, decisions they make daily effect our freedoms. some RECOGNIZE freedoms, others take freedoms away.

the worst thing a legislator can do is write, then pass, a BAD LAW.

a law recognizing the freedom to hunt with raptors is a good thing. it shouldn't take me posting about it to make you realize that. but if it does, so be it.

a law recognizing the RIGHT to hunt with raptors is a good thing. for years people have tried to TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. it's time this stopped.

perhaps this post will help you realize that.

glad to be of service.

crazycajun:

...

a law recognizing the freedom to hunt with raptors is a good thing. it shouldn't take me posting about it to make you realize that. but if it does, so be it.

a law recognizing the RIGHT to hunt with raptors is a good thing. for years people have tried to TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS. it's time this stopped.

perhaps this post will help you realize that.

glad to be of service.

Those remarks were of no service because they have no factual basis. 

Michigan has long had falconry (hunting with raptors) seasons.

This bill proposes a law ordering the Department of Natural Resources to issue order establishing a season for the taking of raptors from the wild, for use of the birds in falconry.

Isn't that a proposal for micromanagement by the Legislature?  

 no, it's a proposal to allow falconers and hawkers to take wild birds to bolster the genetic diversity of the 'captive' flock. the captives are starting to show signs of overbreeding. not bad yet, like some breeds of dogs, but still worrysome. injecting some 'fresh blood' into some of the private aeries will help aleviate that problem.

now, i want to know, with the incredibly small numbers of wild birds taken, why you have a problem with taking falcons?

and why even mention eagles? most hunters don't even bother with them, as they are too big to keep easily, they eat far too much, and take far too many hours to train effectively. and then, there is the fact that MANY are federally protected, as hawks and falcons are USUALLY not, unless their numbers plummet in a particular area.

with most hawks and falcons nesting even in large cities like new york, the WILD population will not be adversely effected at all by these takings. in fact, most SERIOUS falconers encourage breeding and return a great number of birds to the wild.

the net effect of this bill will be MORE birds to see flying free, and a superior bird to watch on the wing.

good hunting to you.

crazycajun:

 no, it's a proposal to allow falconers and hawkers to take wild birds to bolster the genetic diversity of the 'captive' flock. the captives are starting to show signs of overbreeding. not bad yet, like some breeds of dogs, but still worrysome. injecting some 'fresh blood' into some of the private aeries will help aleviate that problem.

Well, you either have a rich imagination or are prescient if you see all that written into this bill. 

Moreover, it does say exactly what I described before: The bill proposes a law ordering the Department of Natural Resources to issue order establishing a season for the taking of raptors from the wild, for use of the birds in falconry.  Do you deny that?

I have read much legislation over the years, and it often is led off with preamble statements or other of legislative intent as to what a bill is supposed to accomplish or how it is to be applied.  There is no such preamble here.  None of what you claimed above appears in this bill. 

The full language of the bill is this:

     A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled

 

"Natural resources and environmental protection act," (MCL 324.101 to 324.90106) by adding section 40107b.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

 

     SEC. 40107B. (1) THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 40107(2) ESTABLISHING A SEASON OR SEASONS FOR FALCONERS TO TAKE LIVE RAPTORS FOR USE IN FALCONRY. THE ORDER SHALL DESIGNATE THE NUMBERS OF RAPTORS THAT MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED AND ANY OTHER CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO THE TAKING AND POSSESSION OF RAPTORS THAT THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERS ADVISABLE.

 

     (2) THIS SECTION DOES NOT, AND AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT, DESIGNATE ANY SPECIES OF RAPTOR AS GAME. THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT FROM DETERMINING THAT ANY SPECIES OF RAPTOR IS A PROTECTED ANIMAL.

Moving on ...

now, i want to know, with the incredibly small numbers of wild birds taken, why you have a problem with taking falcons?

I have not yet taken a position on this bill.  However, I am not very enthusiastic about a law that would lead to legalized molestation of breeding raptor nests.  Nor am I enthusiastic about the Legislature micromanaging matters like this.

and why even mention eagles

Simple.  Eagles are raptors. 

You have provided some things to think about.  But I would like to see facts brought out by a credible authority on this topic before making my own decision on it.  A guy who posts on an internet forum under a pseuodonym is not a credible authority when he/she spews out unsubstantiated statements.

Provide some citations and sources for your claims – sources that actually can be checked out.  That would be a breath of fresh air, bring some light to the discussion and make you more believable.

 easy...

look up FALCONRY in google.

type in MICHIGAN in front of it, you will find LOTS OF LISTINGS of birders in michigan.

now, i didn't read ANYTHING that would prohibit the raising and breeding of falcons and hawks by a hawker.

did you?

now, you haven't found it within yourself to either like, or dislike this bill, but you require an expert's knowledge before you do.

so, why are you even on this site asking questions? you will only take answers from an EXPERT. either become an expert, or hold your opinion (which you don't have) to yourself.

you didn't ask me to PROVE anything about this legislation, you asked me FOR MY OPINION. and i gave it to you.

now, prove you don't like birds molested.

prove that taking birds from the wild will molest nests.

do you even know when falcons and hawks nest?

the bill doesn't say, but it DOES allow the SUPPOSED EXPERTS AT A STATE REGULATORY AGENCY to make the decision. that should be good enough for you, as the government can do no wrong.

what's more, i expect that the experts would be more than willing to take the advise of those more experienced in the sport when it comes to picking nesting dates for different species which nest at different times.

you don't take eggs out of a nest, nor do you disturb nesting birds, you take young birds within a few months of full fledging, when they are still learning to fly, and are easiest to teach. you exercise them regularly, reward them with treats (rabbit meat usually) and treat them well. they will be happy to fly for you, and behave well,even in public, which could disorient some birds.

so, look things up for yourself, and please start posting under your REAL name from now on out if you aren't going to believe anything that a poster with a psuedonym puts forward. by using a 'pen name' i take it YOU can't and SHOULDN'T be trusted either.

have a good one, and good hunting.

After doing a little research I find some facts pertinent to this bill.

1)  It is essentially (but not exactly) a reintroduction of legislation introduced last year (2008) to extend or eliminate the “sunset” on a Michigan law that provides for obtaining raptors from the wild for use on “hawking” or falconry.  That legislation (SB 1085) actually passed in both houses of the Legislature and differences in House and Senate versions were reconciled, but it was buried in the last minute legislative flurry in December 2008 and so died when the session adjourned.  The old law expired in January 4, 2009

Find out about that here:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(sksbpjnu0oc42wfbqphnadb1))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2008-SB-1085

Here is a link to the Senate Fiscal Agency analysis of SB 1085 shortly after it was introduced.  It should also pertain to the current proposal:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2007-SFA-1085-A.pdf

The fact that obtaining raptors from the wild has been legal in Michigan for many years places this legislation in a very different light.

2)  A Capital News Service story from April 25, 2008 reported that SB 1085 was supported by the Michigan Hawking Club (falconers), the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Michigan Audubon Society. 

Here’s the link:

http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2008/04/falconers_hawk_bill_to_let_the.html

That is an impressive coalition of knowledgeable types – falconers, regulators, and birders.

3)  The current bill (and SB 1085, in its final version last year) does away with certain restrictions contained in the now expired law.  

Before having studied this legislation I impulsively suggested the current bill is micromanagement by the Legislature.  Actually, the current proposal steps the Legislature away from micromanagement, and puts the current proposal more in the realm of enabling legislation.  So much for shooting from the hip.

4)  Now, for information about Falconry in Michigan, here’s the link to the Michigan Hawking Club, a good starting point:

http://www.mhcwebsite.macwebsitebuilder.com/page/page/5845323.htm

4)  I note that none of the credible sources I have reviewed cites bolstering genetic diversity of the falconry flock as a rationale for this legislation.

 no one ever said that genetic diversity was THE (or even A) rational for this legislation, but it IS an UNINTEDED CONSEQUENCE that happens to benefit all involved, especially the birds.

open your mind, quit thinking that EVERY hunk of legislation is micromanagement. SOME ARE, SOME AREN'T. judge each on it's merits.

now, i wonder why anyone would put a sunset clause on a law that has so very few downsides?

perhaps it's anti-hunting sentiments showing through.

crazycajun:

 no one ever said that genetic diversity was THE (or even A) rational for this legislation, but it IS an UNINTEDED CONSEQUENCE that happens to benefit all involved, especially the birds.

Sorry, Bub, that is just a whopper.

Here is exactly what you posted (said) on this forum, January 24, 2009, at 6:41 AM:

”no, it's a proposal to allow falconers and hawkers to take wild birds to bolster the genetic diversity of the 'captive' flock. the captives are starting to show signs of overbreeding. not bad yet, like some breeds of dogs, but still worrysome. injecting some 'fresh blood' into some of the private aeries will help aleviate that problem.”

Furthermore, I have not elsewhere seen that claim about genetic deterioration of captive breeding stock and improvement coming from the infusion of wild raptors. 

What I have learned in my reading so far is that captive breeding of birds for falconry is a relatively recent development, dating back only to the 1960s.  The Wikipedia entry on the topic states:

By the mid-1980s, it could be said that falconers had become self-sufficient as regards sources of birds to train and fly, in addition to the immensely important conservation benefits conferred by captive breeding.

 Source:  Wikipedia

Now, you say:

open your mind, quit thinking that EVERY hunk of legislation is micromanagement. SOME ARE, SOME AREN'T. judge each on it's merits.

You are in a poor position to lecture anyone about the need to have an open mind.  I corrected myself, above, on the matter of this bill appearing to be micromanagement by the Legislature.  

 yes, you did.

and now you are only looking for an excuse to argue.

increasing genetic diversity is MY OPINION of why this bill SHOULD PASS.

is it a FACT. yes.

is it the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATOR THAT WROTE IT?  no.

does it MATTER? no.

what does matter is that the RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS of hawkers, birders, and whatever else you want to call them is being upheld.

now, if you OPPOSE this bill, you oppose those rights and freedoms in the name of watching birds fly free. WITH this bill, birds will still fly free. WITHOUT this bill, hunter's will not.

you couldn't see that for yourself.

pity.

crazycajun:

 and now you are only looking for an excuse to argue.

And so, the pot calleth the kettle black.

”increasing genetic diversity is MY OPINION of why this bill SHOULD PASS.

 

“is it a FACT. yes.”

Then why did you state it as a fact and not as your opinion when you first posted it?  And why do you continue insisting it is a fact without citing a source? 

As noted above, I have now done a considerable amount of background reading on this very issue and do not find any source that suggests the captive breeding stock of raptors is becoming genetically weak. 

What is your source?  (Cited in meaningful terms, please, for once.)

”is it the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATOR THAT WROTE IT?  no.

 

“does it MATTER? no.”

That is not what you said on Saturday, January 24, 2009, at 6:41 AM.  In fact, you directly stated that SB 10 is “a proposal to allow falconers and hawkers to take wild birds to bolster the genetic diversity of the 'captive' flock.”  But now you say it isn’t, and that the genetic diversity thing doesn’t matter. 

Well, which is it?  Does it matter, or does it not matter?  If it does matter, why don’t you substantiate your claim about genetic diversity by citing a credible source?  If it doesn’t matter, why do you continue to belabor an unsubstantiated claim of purpose for passing this bill? 

How about citing some verifiable facts to make your case if you support this bill?

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

 and now you are only looking for an excuse to argue.

 

 

And so, the pot calleth the kettle black.

 

”increasing genetic diversity is MY OPINION of why this bill SHOULD PASS.

 

“is it a FACT. yes.”

 

Then why did you state it as a fact and not as your opinion when you first posted it?  And why do you continue insisting it is a fact without citing a source? 

<can't you read. it IS a fact. it's just NOT the fact that the legislator wrote when he penned the bill. you can't seem to find any 'sources' for your arguement, but you keep making it. the source of this little tidbit of information is ME. verified by ME. posted by ME. i don't need verification of something i know to be true. several birders i know tell me, and i happen to respect what they tell me as fact. i don't need any verification as to whether they know their stuff, or whether or not they are telling the truth. you, on the other hand, know no one who hunts with birds, so you have no frame of reference. you also stated that you had no opinion on the matter, but were seeking other's opinions. in other words, you have NO DOG IN THIS FIGHT.>

 

As noted above, I have now done a considerable amount of background reading on this very issue and do not find any source that suggests the captive breeding stock of raptors is becoming genetically weak. 

 <try FOREST PENDLETON III. he'll be happy to bend your ear for hours about the lack of genetic diversity in his aerie. now there's a source for you. he's supplied birds to zoos around the country, as well as trained birds for several organizations and a movie or three. he's only been hunting with birds since he was a boy (a LONG time) and has been breeding birds since the 1960's.>

 

What is your source?  (Cited in meaningful terms, please, for once.)

<read my commentary above. if that's not meaningful enough for you, you have a serious problem.> 

”is it the INTENDED PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATOR THAT WROTE IT?  no.

 <the intended purpose of the legislator that wrote it was to restore RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES. i'm sure that genetics was the last thing on his mind. if that changes your mind about this legislation, then so be it. you don't really care about this bill anyway>

“does it MATTER? no.”

 

That is not what you said on Saturday, January 24, 2009, at 6:41 AM.  In fact, you directly stated that SB 10 is “a proposal to allow falconers and hawkers to take wild birds to bolster the genetic diversity of the 'captive' flock.”  But now you say it isn’t, and that the genetic diversity thing doesn’t matter. 

 

Well, which is it?  Does it matter, or does it not matter? 

<it certainly doesn't matter to you. why do YOU oppose this bill? are you ANTI-HUNTING or just ANTI-FALCONRY?>

If it does matter, why don’t you substantiate your claim about genetic diversity by citing a credible source? 

<why do you need a credible source? can you not look at the bill and make up your own mind? obviously not.>

 If it doesn’t matter, why do you continue to belabor an unsubstantiated claim of purpose for passing this bill? 

<i'm not the one belaboring, you are. get over it. all you are going to get is OPINIONS. everyone, birders especially, have their opinions, except you. you obviously haven't given this thing enough research or enough thought. you should attend a few hunts, watch the birds work, watch the falconers work their birds, and enjoy yourself. you WILL learn something you didn't know.  and the sources are unimpeachable. they are the ones that know how to do it.>

 

How about citing some verifiable facts to make your case if you support this bill?

 <how about doing your own homework for a change. the LAST time you actually looked something up, you found that you had been wrong in your opinion. keep it up, you may just come around yet.>

 

 

 hey pot.

1. you are NEVER going to hunt with a bird, so why even worry about this bill?

2. you say you like to watch birds fly free. SO WHAT? you will still see birds fly free. you MAY see even more birds fly free.

3. if you actively OPPOSE this bill, you may see FAR FEWER BIRDS FLYING FREE. because birders and other hunters ACTIVELY support conservation and preservation efforts with lots of their own money. YOU rely on the legislators to believe your little patch of woods is worth saving.

4. you don't come across as the 'get out into the woods, bring your kids hunting' kind of guy. maybe your research will change that.

5. imagine the kind of hero your kid is going to be (or could have been,) when they go to school and for 'show and tell', and a FRIEND who happens to hunt, who your child knows on a first name basis, brings his bird and his expertise with him to class. i know when Mr. Forrest brought his bird to my fifth grade class, and took us outside to watch the bird fly, we were ALL favorably impressed. i got a good grade, Mr. Forrest got a day 'showing off his birds', and my classmates got firsthand knowledge about birds and hunting. it was a WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN SITUATION.>

6. now imagine what WOULDN'T happen if this bill doesn't pass. raptors WOULDN'T be taken, breeding WOULDN'T take place, EXTRA BIRDS WOULDN'T be returned to nature. kids WOULDN'T be exposed positively to falconry, and hunting in general, and RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WOULDN'T BE RESPECTED OR MAINTAINED.

crazycajun:

1. you are NEVER going to hunt with a bird, so why even worry about this bill?

Now, just exactly how do you know that?  Are you the Great Karnak or something.  This is exactly like many of the statements you make – totally without basis.

2. you say you like to watch birds fly free. SO WHAT? you will still see birds fly free. you MAY see even more birds fly free.

Explain that, please.  And cite credible sources that can actually be located, for once.  Or is it just another of your endless opinions presented as fact?

3. if you actively OPPOSE this bill, you may see FAR FEWER BIRDS FLYING FREE. because birders and other hunters ACTIVELY support conservation and preservation efforts with lots of their own money. YOU rely on the legislators to believe your little patch of woods is worth saving.

You are babbling.  How can captive birds be free birds?  How does placing birds in captivity increase the number of birds flying free?  Again, please cite credible sources that actually can be located to support your contentions. 

4. you don't come across as the 'get out into the woods, bring your kids hunting' kind of guy. maybe your research will change that.

Not that it matters, but neither do you come across as that kind of guy.  But what does that matter, anyway?  All I am looking for here is informed sources.  You are not one, and you have yet to point me to one that I can actually locate.

5. imagine the kind of hero your kid is going to be (or could have been,) when they go to school and for 'show and tell', and a FRIEND who happens to hunt, who your child knows on a first name basis, brings his bird and his expertise with him to class. i know when Mr. Forrest brought his bird to my fifth grade class, and took us outside to watch the bird fly, we were ALL favorably impressed. i got a good grade, Mr. Forrest got a day 'showing off his birds', and my classmates got firsthand knowledge about birds and hunting. it was a WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN SITUATION.

What are you babbling about?  How does some experience you claim to have had in the fifth grade relate to this bill? 

6. now imagine what WOULDN'T happen if this bill doesn't pass. raptors WOULDN'T be taken, breeding WOULDN'T take place, EXTRA BIRDS WOULDN'T be returned to nature. kids WOULDN'T be exposed positively to falconry, and hunting in general, and RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WOULDN'T BE RESPECTED OR MAINTAINED.

Breeding would not take place?  Show us a credible source that makes that assertion, if you please.  And one that we actually can access, this time, if you know how.

Kids wouldn’t be exposed positively to falconry?  Who says?  Again, sources, please.

Failure of this bill would mean kids are not exposed to hunting?  Who says that beside you?  Sources, please. 

Rights and liberties wouldn’t be respected or maintained?  Maybe you have something there.  Why not argue your case from that perspective instead of making up a bunch of undocumented claims?

Here’s the deal.  If you actually look at the history of this legislation and readily accessible information sources that I provided earlier in this thread, you would see that passage of this bill should be a relative no-brainer for the legislature.  None of your histrionics and made up windbaggery is necessary.

But no.  You have to belabor and turn it into some kind of extended, hysterical argument.

Yours is the kind of destructive behavior that got last session’s SB 1085 tie-barred to a far more controversial bill addressing hunting with crossbows.  In the end, legislators agreed to accept an untied SB 1085, which then was poised to go on and become law.  But much of this happened at the last minute, and the bill wound up getting lost in the shuffle during the closing days of the session, in December 2008. 

So now Falconers in Michigan are left to start all over from scratch after the law permitting them to capture wild birds expired due its sunset provision.  That is a sad situation, especially in light of documented experience under the expired law.  

In my view this certainly is supportable legislation.  I am particularly impressed to see that not only the Michigan hawking organization, but the DNR and the Audubon Society supported SB 1085 last year, (as documented earlier).  Assumptions always bear some risk, but in this case it seems like a safe bet to presume that the current SB 10 enjoys comparable support from those knowledgeable and responsible organizations. 

It would ne nice to see this bill whiz right through the legislative process so Michigan falconers can continue doing what they’ve been permitted to do in years past with minimal interruption.

 hey sane...

what do you suppose SOURCES are going to tell you that i didn't?

i GAVE you the name of a source that has vast knowledge on this subject. you want his phone number too????

there are PLENTY of sources. LOOK THEM UP FOR YOURSELF. sources aren't going to tell you whether or not this bill should pass.

if you are looking for informed sources, and only respect their opinion, what are you doing on this site discussing birds?

go to amazon and buy one of the dozen or so good books on falconry, and READ THEM. go to GOOGLE and look up the subject, read carefully and then FORM YOUR OWN OPINION.

if you don't believe me, why did you ASK ME?

again, you are just looking for a fight.

or are you just afraid to MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WISH TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU?

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

1. you are NEVER going to hunt with a bird, so why even worry about this bill?

 

Now, just exactly how do you know that?  Are you the Great Karnak or something.  This is exactly like many of the statements you make – totally without basis.

 <because you KNOW NOTHING about the subject, CARED nothing about this subject till you saw my support for it, and couldn't have cared less if you handn't. in other words, you were looking for a fight. you've lost the last few 'debates' we've had, or at least you've stopped posting to them.>

2. you say you like to watch birds fly free. SO WHAT? you will still see birds fly free. you MAY see even more birds fly free.

Explain that, please.

<if you need me to explain that, you have no business stepping into a voting booth.>

  And cite credible sources that can actually be located, for once.

<see my commentary on doing your own homework.>

  Or is it just another of your endless opinions presented as fact?

<no, it's fact, belabored by you into arguement.>

 

3. if you actively OPPOSE this bill, you may see FAR FEWER BIRDS FLYING FREE. because birders and other hunters ACTIVELY support conservation and preservation efforts with lots of their own money. YOU rely on the legislators to believe your little patch of woods is worth saving.

You are babbling.

<no, once again, i'm expressing my UNIQUE OPINION based on what i know to be true. YOU can't do that, because you don't know anything to be true, especially about this subject.>

  How can captive birds be free birds? 

<the captive birds would BREED the extra free birds.>

 How does placing birds in captivity increase the number of birds flying free? 

<the same way CAPTIVE alligators increased the number of FREE alligators. but you wouldn't know anything about THAT either. or maybe, the same way CAPTIVE EAGLES increased the numbers of FREE eagles. or CAPTIVE WOLVES increased the numbers of FREE WOLVES. it's called bolstering the natural populations. look it up, it makes for interesting reading. >

 Again, please cite credible sources that actually can be located to support your contentions. 

<watch DIRTY JOBS,  even THAT guy helps out with conservation efforts.>

4. you don't come across as the 'get out into the woods, bring your kids hunting' kind of guy. maybe your research will change that.

Not that it matters,

<so you ADMIT it doesn't matter, but you prattle on anyway.>

 but neither do you come across as that kind of guy.  But what does that matter, anyway?  All I am looking for here is informed sources.

<then you are looking in the WRONG PLACE. this is a place where you will find PLENTY OF OPINIONS.>

  You are not one,

<SO WHY DID YOU ASK ME FOR MY OPINION???? WHY DIDN'T YOU LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF? WHAT, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW???>

 and you have yet to point me to one that I can actually locate.

<perhaps that's because you didn't TRY.>

5. imagine the kind of hero your kid is going to be (or could have been,) when they go to school and for 'show and tell', and a FRIEND who happens to hunt, who your child knows on a first name basis, brings his bird and his expertise with him to class. i know when Mr. Forrest brought his bird to my fifth grade class, and took us outside to watch the bird fly, we were ALL favorably impressed. i got a good grade, Mr. Forrest got a day 'showing off his birds', and my classmates got firsthand knowledge about birds and hunting. it was a WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN, WIN SITUATION.

What are you babbling about?  How does some experience you claim to have had in the fifth grade relate to this bill?

<to the bill, nothing but giving part of the basis of WHY I SUPPORT IT. you, devoid of such experience, cannot form that opinion. sources won't give you that experience, no matter how much you want them to. get out and find some birders, talk to them, hunt with them. THEN you will have your sources.> 

6. now imagine what WOULDN'T happen if this bill doesn't pass. raptors WOULDN'T be taken, breeding WOULDN'T take place, EXTRA BIRDS WOULDN'T be returned to nature. kids WOULDN'T be exposed positively to falconry, and hunting in general, and RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES WOULDN'T BE RESPECTED OR MAINTAINED.

Breeding would not take place?  Show us a credible source that makes that assertion, if you please.

<me.>

  And one that we actually can access, this time, if you know how.

<i'm on here a lot. just ask nicely and i'll tell you what you want to know. if you don't believe me. look it up in google, IF YOU KNOW HOW.>

Kids wouldn’t be exposed positively to falconry? 

<you weren't exposed positively to falconry. you didn't even see anything on television in your lifetime that exposed you positively to falconry, or else you would have been armed with the INFORMATION you needed to form an opinion.>

 Who says?  Again, sources, please.

<again, I DID.>

Failure of this bill would mean kids are not exposed to hunting?  Who says that beside you?  Sources, please.

<Mr. Pendleton. > 

Rights and liberties wouldn’t be respected or maintained?  Maybe you have something there.  Why not argue your case from that perspective instead of making up a bunch of undocumented claims?

<there is no documentation, as if that's necessary, to support it. again, it's MY OPINION. and i give it freely. of course, there is no documentation that YOU are real, so by your logic, i'm suspect that you are a real person. ain't logic wonderful?>

 

Here’s the deal.  If you actually look at the history of this legislation and readily accessible information sources that I provided earlier in this thread, you would see that passage of this bill should be a relative no-brainer for the legislature.  None of your histrionics and made up windbaggery is necessary.

<if you look at the bill, read it, and decide that the right and freedom to hunt with or without birds is a GOOD THING, then you don't need the history of this legislation and the readily accessible information sources that you provided. you had them and STILL haven't made up your mind. maybe if you had some HISTORY with the subject, and hung around some knowedgeable windbags, you wouldn't have erred  several times in your decisionmaking process. but probably not. >

But no.  You have to belabor and turn it into some kind of extended, hysterical argument.

<who's being hysterical? YOU??? certainly not me... i'm not parsing words and begging for sources. i'm not refusing OPINIONS as baseless when you have no experience behind you to back that up. perhaps that's your problem, you have no experience with the subject.>

Yours is the kind of destructive behavior that got last session’s SB 1085 tie-barred to a far more controversial bill addressing hunting with crossbows.  In the end, legislators agreed to accept an untied SB 1085, which then was poised to go on and become law.  But much of this happened at the last minute, and the bill wound up getting lost in the shuffle during the closing days of the session, in December 2008.

<really? it couldn't have been the destructive behavior of the legislators who use tie-barring to impede the progress of this RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS bill? NOOOO... it COULDN'T have been THAT.... > 

So now Falconers in Michigan are left to start all over from scratch after the law permitting them to capture wild birds expired due its sunset provision. 

<so, however did you let that happen? why would a GOOD LAW have a sunset provision? usually those are tacked onto things that are bad and that the legislators WANT TO GO AWAY AFTER A SHORT WHILE. please tell me why there was a sunset on this bill? who opposes hunting that badly? you seem to have all the history and sources, what do they say about those that tacked on the sunset provision?>

 That is a sad situation, especially in light of documented experience under the expired law.

<and what experience would that be? one you just looked up? probably not. but let's hear it anyway.>  

In my view this certainly is supportable legislation. 

<oh, so now you've made up your mind. GOOD FOR YOU.>

 I am particularly impressed to see that not only the Michigan hawking organization, but the DNR and the Audubon Society supported SB 1085 last year, (as documented earlier). 

<so, with those EXPERT OPINIONS IN HAND why did you have trouble making up your mind?>

 Assumptions always bear some risk, but in this case it seems like a safe bet to presume that the current SB 10 enjoys comparable support from those knowledgeable and responsible organizations. 

<please cite sources to validate your assumption.>

It would ne nice to see this bill whiz right through the legislative process so Michigan falconers can continue doing what they’ve been permitted to do in years past with minimal interruption.

<like breeding birds and returning them to the wild? like bringing birds to fifth grade classes and having a little fly around the playground? like HUNTING FREELY. like SUPPORTING CONSERVATION EFFORTS WITH THEIR OWN MONEY?>

 

 

 so, at what point did you decide to SUPPORT this legislation? after you got tired of OPPOSING ME?>

Hi Guys,

Wow! Quite the spirited debate.  I am glad you both appear to be for this legislation. 

I am the Public Relations Coordinator for the Michigan Hawking Club.  I have been a falconer for 14 years, flying redtail hawks, Cooper's hawks, Goshawks and Peregrine Falcons.

I would like to start this reply with the only true definition of falconry. Falconry is the sport of hunting wild quarry with a trained bird of prey.

I would like to give you a brief history of falconry in Michigan.  Michigan, along with most the other state that allow falconry (all now but Hawaii and DC) set legislation parallel to the Federal Falconry Regulations in the early 1970's and made a set of guidelines for entering the sport, including testing, sponsorship and inspections.  Falconry grew in Michigan, albeit slowly, as  ancient and fringe activities often do.

In the 1980's, a lawsuit against the Michigan DNR, brought about by the Michigan Audubon Society, made it unlawful for the DNR to regulate the "take" of raptors in Michigan for falconry.  Falconers could no longer take raptors from the State for use in Falconry.  Most falconers traveled to other states to trap their birds, as I did in 1993.

The Michigan Hawking Club has, for many years now, worked to heal old divides between itself and the Michigan Audubon Society.   The Michigan Audubon Society no longer opposes the take of raptors for the use in falconry.  The MHC is very active at Outdoor Sporting events (next weekend at Outdoor-O-Rama in Novi) and raptor educational events (Hawkfest, Lake Erie Metropark every fall).

About 10 years ago, the MHC, along with the other falconers in the state were able to get legislation passed to allow a 5 year "take" of raptors from Michigan.  After 5 years, the laws reached a "Sunset" and had to be renewed.  In 2003, we were able to get the laws renewed for another 5 years. Which brings us to 2008. SB1085 was the falconry take bill we have wanted for the last 10 years.  Unfortunately, due to one Representative in the House backing out of his promise to the falconers of the state, SB1085 failed.  This was a bill that had 100% support in the Senate and would have likely had the same support through the House had it been sent through by itself and not tie-bared to another bill.

Now, in 2009, we have SB10.  It is basically the same bill as SB1085.  It allows for the elimination of the "sunset" so the falconers in the state (all 110 of us) don't have to go through this again.  It also allows for the DNR to, through sound science, set the number of birds allowed each season to be taken from the wild.

This Bill has nothing to do with Captive Breeding of Raptors.  99% of the birds trapped for the sport of falconry in Michigan will NEVER end up in any sort of breeding project.  Actually, I have been a falconer for 14 years and a Captive Breeder of hawks for two years and I do not know of one single bird from Michigan that is in any breeding project.  Most often, birds that are trapped for the sport of falconry in the fall are released within a few years of capture.  These birds go back into the wild population of raptors to breed and continue the species.

This bill simply allows the licensed Michigan falconers to continue to take the small number of raptors from the wild that we have been allowed to take in the last 10 years.  The take of raptors by falconers has been found to be of no significant impact on wild populations of raptors.  In the wild, young raptors in their first year have about a 80% mortality rate within their first year.  Birds trapped and used in falconry have the best vetrenarian care and are kept in excellent condition.  Using a first year bird in falconry increases it chances for survival once released.

Unfortunately, Representative Joel Sheltrown, Chair of the Tourisim, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee (TORNR) is refusing to give SB10 a hearing.  His attempts to tie-bar his crossbow bill to SB1085 last year resulted in neither bill being passed, though there were no poopsed votes to SB1085.

I would encourage anyone who would like to help Michigan falconers to write their District's State Representative,  Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, and all the members of the TORNR Committe and ask then to pressure Representative Sheltrown to let SB10 have the hearing in Committee that it deserves.  It is a discraceful move for Mr. Sheltrown to hold this bill hostage over his own issues.

The members of the Michigan Hawking Club have worked very hard for many, many years educating the public about raptors, habitat loss, raptor safety from electrocution and poisoning, raptor conservation and raptor rehabilitation.  Not to mention how fun the sport of falconry really is!  It is our goal to continue with this education process.

Please feel free to visit our website at www.michiganhawkingclub.com.  I would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have about this bill or falconry.  Please feel free to contact me.

I will close as I began.  Falconry is the sport of hunting wild quarry with a trained bird of prey.

Best Regards,

Kory Koch

Michigan Hawking Club Public Relations

6065 South Whiteville Road

Mount Pleasant, Mi 48858

989/560-3857

korykoch@michiganhawkingclub.com

 so kory.

" Actually, I have been a falconer for 14 years and a Captive Breeder of hawks for two years and I do not know of one single bird from Michigan that is in any breeding project."

does no one here in michigan breed birds?

why not? you do it for birds from other states.

why do you suppose that the government would allow a benign activity like taking birds from the wild to be released to 'sunset' unless they opposed the activity, only allowing it to quiet opposition? 

crazycajun:

 

does no one here in michigan breed birds?

I am one of  6 or 7 raptor breeders here in the state of Michigan. We are also all falconers.  But, falconers do not trap or take birds from the wild soley for their breeding projects and none of the birds in any of these breeding projects have been taken from Michigan.  It is not that they couldn't do it, but no one ever has.  Again, this bill has nothing to do with raptor propagation or captive breeding.  It is about trapping birds for falconry.  Though the two things are connected at times, in this case, they are not.

crazycajun:

why not? you do it for birds from other states.

Sorry, but your question is not very clear. I will try to cover all the possibilities of what you ask with my answer. 

The birds that are most often trapped for falconry here in Michigan are the Redtail Hawk, the American Kestral and the Cooper's Hawk.  These are the birds that most falconers are looking to fly in the state. These three birds are so abundent and redily avaliable in Michigan for the use in falconry that no one would want to breed them.  Breeding it a lot of work and there if little reason for anyone to breed a bird in captivity that is easliy trapped for use in the sport of falconry.

Northern Goshawks, Harris Hawks and falcons, primarily Peregrines, Gyrfalcons and Prairie Falcons are often the target birds that are bred in captivity.  These are all birds that are either not native or not avaliable for take from the wild in Michigan, with the exception of the Goshawk.  Our past legislation allowed for the capture of two passage (young, first year birds) goshawks from the wild each year. That being said,  to this date, no one has managed to trap a passage Goshawk in Michigan, though there has been 5 years of trying by 10 different falconers.

With that in mind, the captive breeding of Goshawks is best done with "imprinted" birds, meaning birds raised from a young chick by humans. The human plays the mate to both the male and female birds and artificial insemination is used to propagate these birds.

Harris Hawks and falcons generally are bred from birds from already captive raised stock, called "chamber raised" birds.  These birds are bred with "natural pairs", a male and female set up in a chamber together.

I breed Northern Goshawks.  Falconers in Michigan cannot take young goshawks from the wild in Michigan.  I can travel to other states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota or Wyoming to take young Goshawks, but it is quite an effort, both time and money, to do so.  Since my falconry intresets lean toward flying Goshawks at game here in the state, I choose to captive breed Goshawks to allow me access to this particular bird.  That being said, there are only a few falconers here in the state that are flying Goshawks.  Most falconers perfer to trap and fly Redtail Hawks.

Again, I want to stress this fact, SB10 has absolutely nothing to do with giving falconers access to birds for Captive Breeding.  It IS 100% about giving falconers access to common birds (Redtail Hawk, American Kestral and Cooper's hawks) for the use in the sport of falconry.

why do you suppose that the government would allow a benign activity like taking birds from the wild to be released to 'sunset' unless they opposed the activity, only allowing it to quiet opposition? 

Sorry, I guess I may not have been clear enough in my previous message...

The fact is, the State Government (Govenor, House and Senate members), The Natural Resources Committe (NRC) and the DNR are not, and have never been opposed to falconers being able to trap raptors from the state. It was not the "government" at all that was opposed to this.

In my previous message, I stated that back in the 1980's, the Michigan Audabon Society sued the DNR and won their lawsuit, which removed the right of the DNR to manage a take of raptors for the use in falconry. The Michigan Audabon Society is a huge organization with many members, deep pockets and strong resources. Unfortunately at the time, there was bad blood between older, long time members of both the Michigan Audabon Society and the Michigan Hawking Club.  This bad blood is much water under the bridge now, with an excellent working relationship between the two organization now, as I mentioned.  Our common intrests for concervation and education has formed strong bonds between our two organizations.

The "sunset" was requested to be attached to the past legislation to allow trapping at the request of the Michigan Audabon Society, and it was accepted as "good faith" on the part of the falconers of Michigan.  It has always been our understand that as the two groups continue to build stronger relationships, further attempts at legislation would be considered without the sunset, as is the case with SB10.

Now, to get this new bill pass, SB10, we will need the 103rd District Representative Joel Sheltrown to give it a hearing in the Tourisim, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources Committee. 

At the moment and due to his attempts at political wrangling, Mr. Sheltrown is not willing to give this bill, that is expected to recieve 100% support in the House (as it did in the Senate) a hearing until what he calls, and I quote,  "the situation that developed last year which prevented passage of the falconry bill (SB1085)." is resolved.  

What actually happened was Sheltrown tie-bared his unpopular crossbow bill to our popular falconry bill after it (SB1085) had already been approved by the Senate.  At his TORNR Committe meeting, he tied the crossbow bill to the falconry bill, which resulted in SB1085 having to go back to the Senate.  The Senate was not willing to pass the the crossbow bill just because it was tied to the falconry bill. 

Furthermore, Representative Sheltrown had given his word to our former President and current Legslative Coordinator, Dave Hogan, that the falconry bill would be passed through Committee and on to the House for a vote.  He made no excptions to this, he said it was a done deal.  He did not keep his word and, again, this brings us to SB10 and him withholding it from a hearing in his Committee.

Again, if you want to help the falconers of the state, write your State Representative, along with the House Speaker, Andy Dillon, and ask them to help find a resolution to this issue with Mr Sheltrown.

I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight about this issue and inform those who are willing to listen.

Kory, many thanks for your direct and authoritative comments on this legislation and questions that have arisen regarding it.

As I stated earlier in this discussion, at first I was skeptical about this bill.  But then, doing a little research through your organization and a few other sources, and looking at the history of the bill in the last legislative session I gained a much clearer understanding of what is going on.

I now am a solid supporter of this legislation, and will contact my legislators to express that support.

One thing that I find especially commendable and encouraging is the Michigan Hawking Club's effort and success in finding common cause with the Michigan Audubon Society on this issue.  It is not easy to reach across the divide.  You have done a very difficult thing and done it well.

 thank you for those answers.

why do you suppose mr. sheltrown would renege on his promise?

does no one here fly peregrines?

crazycajun:

 thank you for those answers.

why do you suppose mr. sheltrown would renege on his promise?

does no one here fly peregrines?

Mr. Sheltrown is claiming that he is on the loosing end of partisan politics.  He states that the Senate (Republican Controled) will not pass any of his House (Democratically Controled) bills because the Senate suspects Sheltrown will run for the Senate in 2010 and doesn't want his record to show much success.

He sites that his crossbow bills and cormorant depredation bills have been rejected by the House (which they have) because of partisan politics.  The fact is, the DNR and the NRC both have provisions in place to deal with both the crossbow and cormorant issues and do not want his bills passed.  

Yes, there are a couple falconers in Michigan flying captive raised Peregrines.  I have flown falcons in the past, but find it difficult at best to provide them with consistant opportunities at game in Michigan.  Ponds freeze over and then access to ducks is gone and phesants are few and far between locally.

The best game to target in Michigan is rabbits and squirrels.  The best bird to catch rabbits and squirrels consistantly with is the Redtail Hawk. The Redtail Hawk is the most successful raptor in Michigan, and, likely the most common.  It is the bird of choice for many begining and experienced falconers alike.  They are hardy, strong and a great bird to fly in MIchigan.

 i asked because a friend from rose city raised peregrines before he passed away. he was almost as devoted to his birds as he was to his dear wife. she was as patient as job and put up with him raising birds.

i think she secretly loved it. she always travelled with him when he went hunting, or to shows and fairs.

i never asked him about other birds, it's good to know that others share his enthusiasm.

again, thanks for the answers. the whole situation is starting to make a lot more sense now.

Kory Koch:

He sites that his crossbow bills and cormorant depredation bills have been rejected by the House (which they have) because of partisan politics.  The fact is, the DNR and the NRC both have provisions in place to deal with both the crossbow and cormorant issues and do not want his bills passed.  

Have you investigated if there is a way the DNR could establish a raptor taking season without legislative action, much as you suggest they have done with crossbows and cormorant depredation?

 i don't think kory is going to answer you.

Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This state is going down the tubes and we’re spending time regulating falconing? This bill deserves to be given the bird!”

Good news that this bill has passed.

Representative Miller presents himself as an obstructionist fool who evidently has not taken even a few minutes to acquaint himself with the whys and history of this legislation.