[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by Casey Lott on 13:09:36 10/24/08
Hi all,
I would like to clarify a point from David LaPuma s post to the Tropical Audubon website on 10/23/08 (for Chris Borg). This posting supplies misleading information about the USFWS position on falconry take, and then erroneously attributes this information to me, as a representative of HawkWatch International.
As a very important point of fact, the USFWS has not released a final rule for falconry take, which is anticipated in the next few months. This rule will provide guidelines for how many peregrines may be taken for falconry in North America. Once this rule is published, states will have to make decisions on their own harvest regulations, within these federal constraints.
The USFWS evaluated 6 different alternatives in their Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), which was open for public comment for many months. As a representative of HawkWatch International and the director of a long-term monitoring project for Peregrine Falcons in the Florida Keys, I submitted comments to the USFWS on this DEA. If you would like to see these comments, please email me directly at clott@abcbirds.org and I will send them to you. The full DEA is available on line at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/falconry/2007/Migrant%20Draft%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf
To provide some reality to the discussion of potential peregrine harvest levels in Florida, I have copied the six harvest alternatives from the DEA below my signature. Please note that none of these alternatives includes 30 birds in Florida or 30 birds east of the Mississippi , two numbers that have been proposed in this recent email chain.
The DEA first described 6 different geographic areas for potential harvest. Then, based on population modeling, developed numeric targets for take within each of these alternatives. Again, this analysis was open for public comment for many months and the USFWS has not yet announced its final rule, which will address public comments and choose a final alternative. The state of Florida cannot develop its own harvest plan until the USFWS releases this rule. Until this time, the numbers that have been recently circulated for harvest levels in Florida are based on rumors (see below).
Here are the sources of the erroneous information posted to the Tropical Audubon website. On Thursday. October 16th, Kristina Jackson of FWC circulated minutes from a 10/08/08 stakeholder meeting on FWC s proposed de-listing of Peregrine Falcons in the state of Florida. On page 7 of the minutes, the following claim was made
Some stakeholders have heard that take will be limited by the FWS to 30 or so birds in Florida. This number is so small that the falconers do not see the benefit in further limiting the harvest.
On October 23rd, Chris Borg circulated a message from Julie Wraithmell of Audubon that states It is anticipated that Florida will be assigned approximately 30 birds that the state can allow to be trapped from the wild, which echoes this statement from the minutes. Please note that this re-states a rumor not a stated position of the USFWS or FWC.
Finally, late in the day on October 23, Chris Borg circulated a message stating that the proposal allows for capture of 30 young of the year Peregrines East of the Mississippi... not 30 in Florida alone. I called Chris and asked him where he got this information, and he told me that he mis-interpreted a posting that he found online from the falcons and friends website at http://www.falconsandfriends.com/?p=100#more-100 .
The 6 alternatives under consideration by the USFWS, as stated in their DEA, are listed below my signature (and copied directly from the DEA).
Sincerely,
Casey Lott, HawkWatch International
Falconry harvest alternatives from the USFWS DRAFT Environmental Assessment (which has already undergone a public comment period). For the full DEA, go to: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/falconry/2007/Migrant%20Draft%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf
GEOGRAPHIC DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1
No action. Take by falconers of autumn migrant peregrine falcons would remain prohibited in the coterminous U.S.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Allow take of first-year migrant peregrine falcons between 20 September and 20 October from areas of the U.S. south of 31E N latitude and east of 85E W longitude, and within the state of Alaska.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Allow take of first-year migrant peregrine falcons between 20 September and 20 October from areas of the U.S. south of 31E N latitude and east of 100E W longitude and within the state of Alaska. This was essentially the 1999 recommendation of the AFWA, except we have expanded the temporal harvest window to include more of the migration period for Northern peregrines. This is the proposed action.
ALTERNATIVE 4
Allow take of first-year migrant peregrine falcons between 20 September and 20 October from areas of the U.S. west of 100E W longitude and from the state of Alaska.
ALTERNATIVE 5
Allow take of first-year migrant peregrine falcons between 20 September and 20 October from areas of the U.S. south of 31E N latitude and east of 100E W longitude, and from all areas of the U.S. west of 100E W longitude.
ALTERNATIVE 6
Allow take of first-year migrant peregrine falcons between 20 September and 20 October from anywhere in the U.S.
NUMERIC CONSTRAINTS ON ALTERNATIVES BASED ON ANALYSES DETAILED IN THE DEA
ALTERNATIVE 1
Alternative 1 is consistent with the explicit management objectives. However, it would deny falconers outside Alaska access to peregrine falcons that could be removed from the wild for falconry without negatively affecting wild populations.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The maximum harvest that could be allowed under this alternative, given population-specific constraints outlined above, is 84, with a maximum U.S. harvest of 57. This alternative would result in predicted harvest levels consistent with the explicit management objective for most management populations, except that nestling peregrine harvest levels in Alaska and the western U.S. could not exceed 40 and 77, respectively, without leading to potential cumulative overharvest of these population segments. The population limiting harvest under this alternative is the Eastern management population. Allocation of harvest among age-classes (nestling vs.passage) and among states/provinces would need to be coordinated through the
Flyway Councils.
ALTERNATIVE 3 (Proposed Action)
The maximum harvest that could be allowed under this alternative, given population-specific constraints outlined above, is 132, with a maximum U.S. harvest of 105. This alternative would result in predicted harvest levels consistent with the explicit management objective for most management populations, except that nestling peregrine harvest levels in Alaska and the western U.S. could not exceed 25 and 71, respectively, without leading to potential cumulative overharvest of these population segments. The population limiting harvest under this alternative is the Eastern management population. Allocation of harvest among age-classes and
states/provinces would need to be coordinated through the Flyway Councils.
ALTERNATIVE 4
The maximum harvest that could be allowed under this alternative, given the population-specific constraints outlined above, is 25, which would allow no take in the U.S. This alternative would be consistent with the objectives for the management populations, but inasmuch as it allows no take in the U.S., it is not consistent with the AFWA request for consideration of take. The analyses of harvest under this alternative make it clear that harvest west of 100E W longitude greatly affects the possibility and level of take elsewhere in the U.S.
ALTERNATIVE 5
The maximum harvest that could be allowed under this alternative, given population-specific constraints outlined above, is 56, with a maximum take in the U.S. of 29. This alternative would result in predicted harvest levels consistent with the explicit management objective for most management populations, except that nestling peregrine harvest levels in Alaska and the western U.S. could not exceed 53 and 66, respectively, without leading to potential cumulative overharvest of these population segments. The population limiting harvest under this alternative is the Canadian segment of the Western management population. Allocation of harvest among age classes and states/provinces would need to be coordinated through the Flyway Councils.
ALTERNATIVE 6
The maximum harvest that could be allowed under this alternative, given population-specific constraints outlined above, is 61, with a maximum take in the U.S. of 34. The predicted harvest under this alternative would be consistent with the explicit management objective for most management populations, except that nestling peregrine harvest levels in Alaska and the western U.S. could not exceed 53 and 66, respectively, without leading to potential cumulative overharvest of these population segments. The allowed harvest would be lower under this alternative than under Alternative 3 because though the limiting factor under both alternatives is the Eastern population, Alternative 3 limits area in which take is allowed, thereby reducing the likelihood of take of Eastern peregrines. Allocation of harvest among age-classes and
states/provinces would need to be coordinated through the Flyway Councils.
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TAS BirdBoard ] [ FAQ ]