The Fish and Wildlife Service is still trying to regulate Muscovy ducks as a wild migratory duck.
It is has been raised as domestic livestock since the 1500s.
The currently proposed regulations require that domestic Muscovy ducks be marked. “You must physically mark all offspring hatched in captivity before they are 6 weeks of age in accordance with section 21.13(b), unless you hold them at a public zoological park or a public, scientific or educational institution.” The USFWS's accepted methods of marking are 1) clip off the back toe on the right foot, 2) pinion one wing, 3) leg band with a seamless band or 4) tattoo the bird.
Another part of the currently proposed rule reads: “You may not sell or distribute muscovy ducks as pets.”
Muscovies are only native to 3 counties in Texas. The primary problem areas with feral Muscovies are in Florida and Chicago. Where does the Fish and Wildlife Service get the legal authority to suddenly start to regulate domestic livestock all across the United States? And where will they get the funding to enforce these unnecessary regulations?
Please oppose these regulations by comenting by December 30!
Muscovy ducks have been domesticated since the 1500s. Numerous hatcheries in the US sell domestic Muscovy ducks, many bred from Muscovies from France. Turkeys and Muscovies were both domesticated in the Americas and both are now raised as domestic livestock around the world. The FWS has failed to recognize this long history of the domestic Muscovy as livestock. Domestic Muscovy ducks are livestock, and as such should not be subject to U S Fish and Wildlife regulations. (See the page about the history of the domestication of the Muscovy in the sidebar on the left.)
We feel strongly that the U S Fish and Wildlife Service should recognize a distinction between wild Muscovy ducks and the domestic Muscovies that have been raised as livestock all across the world for hundreds of years, and that the U S Fish and Wildlife Service does not have jurisdiction over domestic livestock, whether raised commercially, privately, for food, as pets, or exhibition. Please see the Suggested Letter Template below for proposed language.
We see no problem with the portions of the rules (21.54 Control order for muscovy ducks in the United States) that allows localities to control feral populations of Muscovies that have become a problem. There does not appear to be any conflict between this control order and recognizing domestic Muscovies as livestock and exempting them from this regulation. This should not hinder the abilities of localities to control problem feral populations of wild or domestic Muscovies.
Suggested Letter Template:
Dear Dr. Allen:
I am contacting you in regard to the recently published for comment regulations by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037) regarding Muscovy Ducks.
Muscovy ducks have been domesticated since the 1500s (link). Numerous hatcheries in the US sell domestic Muscovy ducks, many bred from Muscovies from France. Turkeys and Muscovies were both domesticated in the Americas and both are now raised as domestic livestock around the world. The FWS has failed to recognize this long history of the domestic Muscovy as livestock. Domestic Muscovy ducks are livestock, and as such should not be subject to U S Fish and Wildlife regulations. http://muscovyban.blogspot.com/p/history-of-domestication-of-muscovy.html
I feel strongly that the U S Fish and Wildlife Service should recognize a distinction between wild Muscovy ducks and the domestic Muscovies that have been raised as livestock all across the world for hundreds of years, and that the U S Fish and Wildlife Service does not have jurisdiction over domestic livestock, whether raised commercially, privately, for food, as pets, or exhibition. This is an unacceptable infringement on the long-standing right to farm and to feed one’s family.
As I understand the problems that prompted these regulations, the problems with feral Muscovies are, for the most part, limited to Florida and possibly Chicago. Especially considering our country's current budget deficits, why would the Fish and Wildlife Service even think about new regulations that affect domestic livestock all across the United States when the problem is limited to just a couple areas, areas where said ducks are not even native? Where is the funding going to come from?
I see no problem with the portions of the rules (21.54 Control order for muscovy ducks in the United States) that allows localities to control feral populations of Muscovies that have become a problem. There does not appear to be any conflict between this control order and recognizing domestic Muscovies as livestock and exempting them from this regulation. This should not hinder the abilities of localities to control problem feral populations of wild or domestic Muscovies.
Please incoprorate incorporate the following points in the revised rule:
Amend 21.14 Permit exceptions for captive-bred migratory waterfowl other than mallard ducks to include the following:
1) Domestic Muscovy ducks have a long history of domestication and have long been raised as livestock both in the United States and around the world. Muscovy ducks that are owned as livestock (for the production of meat, eggs, or breeding stock), pets, or for exhibition shall be considered domestic Muscovy ducks.
2) No migratory bird permit(s) shall be required to possess, propagate, or sell (as live birds, meat, or eggs) domestic Muscovy ducks.
3) The intentional release of domestic Muscovy ducks to the wild shall be prohibited.
4) You may not take Muscovy ducks or their eggs from the wild , unless such taking is provided for elsewhere in this subchapter.
Do not place any additional restrictions on domestic Muscovy ducks other than items 2-4 above.
Keep 21.54 Control order for muscovy ducks in the United States in effect without revision. It seems important that landowners, and Federal, State, Tribal and local wildlife managment agencies be able to control feral populations of Muscovy ducks in areas where they are not native without a depredation permit.
Thank you for your efforts to revise this rule to recognize the domesticated history of the Muscovy duck.
Sincerely,
________________________
READING THE PROPOSED RULES ONLINE:
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
You 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
SUBMITTING COMMENTS:
The following link should take you directly to the online comment site:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037-0001
(Added 12/25/2010.)
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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment