Tweets,
To get the whole story I put a call into the state office this afternoon
and here is what I was told. Yes, the conservation license is required on
all State Wildlife Lands. I'm not sure if he can actually fine birders
though. I noticed on the board that there was no notice requiring the
license, to fine people the state did say the law needs to be posted.
Still probably best not to take chances. The state also wanted me to
remind other birders that a conservation license gives us EQUAL rights as
the hunters. While its always good to maintain good relations with other
wildlife interests, we do not have to take a backseat to hunters. When I
was there on Friday, hunters were being offensive including shooting just
to fire off the gun when songbirds flew over head and at one point while I
was watching the Redpoll one hunter told his dog to get me! He also was
insistent on how long we were going to be. Considering I was on the edge
of the alder grove, I was not in the path of shots. Perhaps we birders
need to put in a complaint about the hunters which I have done. Doubt it
will do any good. So all birders need to remember these points:
1)Yes conservation license is required
2)If not posted, which as of today it was not, the law cannot be enforced.
3)Conservation license gives us equal rights as the hunters. If the
hunters do harass the state office recommended that we report it.

Scott Downes
sdownes at u.washington.edu
Seattle WA



On Mon, 29 Dec 1997, Michael Price wrote:

> Hi Tweets,
>
> Tom Schooley writes, re getting licences to pay for birding:
>
> >Ruth's note below is well taken. As a point of clarification, I believe
> >the Skagit Wildlife Recreation Area is state property, not federal. The
> >conservation license is needed for state lands, such as Skagit. A Federal
> >Duck Stamp is needed on federal wildlife refuges such as Nisqually, or
> >Dungeness Spit.
>
> This is a good point of information for any BC/Canadian birders coming to
> see this bird. In BC, hunters and birders compete in the same spaces on
> Crown (i.e., government) land for free--well, actually birders for free, and
> the hunters paying for the privilege--as the idea of refuges as places where
> hunters can shoot birds has never really caught on, for some odd reason
> rooted perhaps in the semantics. In BC at least, and for the time being,
> refuges protect them. Of course, in the absence of a well-organised,
> well-financed birding lobby to counter an existing well-organised and
> well-funded hunting lobby, and proponents of the 'game-management' model of
> administration still fairly prevalent in the relevant government
> departments, all it would take is a sufficiently persuadable provincial
> government to change all that.
>
> >This topic was thoroughly discussed a couple months ago, so we need not
> >rehash it now. (Unless, of course, you really want to.)
>
> Maybe, maybe not, so let's leave the issue of further discussion an open
> one; there's always the possibility of a new perspective or viewpoint. It's
> a good reminder of what was a crackling good discussion, though. Thanks.
>
> Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
> Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery and change;
> mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
> Aphra Behn (1640-1689)
>
>