Tweeters,

I agree with Gene Hunn's comments. I have no quarrel with falconry per
se-- after all, captive breeding techniques developed by falconers
were instrumental in recovery efforts for Peregrines and many other
species of raptors. However, I do object to allowing the capture of
wild Peregrines-- or any other species still at risk-- for
recreational use by falconers. If they want to capture nestling
American Kestrels, I have no problem with that.

The Peregrine Falcon was very recently on the Endangered list in the
U.S. Its recovery has been impressive, but it appears that, in many
parts of North America, numbers are still not back to pre-DDT levels.

It is my belief, and that of many others, that the Peregrine was
removed from the Endangered list prematurely, in part because of
political pressure to do so-- to claim a "success" for the Endangered
Species Program. Downlisting from Endangered to Threatened may have
been warranted, but not outright removal from the list.

In Canada, a federal/provincial committee called COSEWIC is
responsible for maintaining lists of endangered, threatened, and
"special concern" species. Their listing process is far more
independent of political interference than the listing process in the
U.S. (I'm talking about the U.S. federal listing-- I don't know just
how the state listing process works in Washington.)

COSEWIC currently considers the "anatum" subspecies of the Peregrine--
the subspecies nesting in Washington-- to be Threatened throughout
Canada. The other two subspecies-- "pealei" and "tundrius"-- are both
in the Special Concern category. In other words, no population of
Peregrines in Canada is considered to be "out of the woods" yet.

Any factor that reduces the breeding success of Peregrines in
Washington State could potentially impact the recovery of Peregrines
in Canada and elsewhere. The species is highly migratory, and actions
taken in Washington State could have international implications.

For this reason, I think that any move to allow the capture of wild
Peregrines for recreational use at this time is risky. As others have
pointed out, the impact of West Nile virus on birds of prey is unknown
but potentially serious, and likely to increase in future. Birds of
prey are known to be especially susceptible to West Nile. Until we are
sure that Peregrine populations are truly not at risk, we should take
the cautious route and continue to prohibit any take of birds from the
wild.

Wayne C. Weber
Kamloops and Delta, BC
contopus at shaw.ca


----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Hunn <enhunn at attbi.com>
To: <rutht at seanet.com>; <paul.webster at attbi.com>; tweeters
<tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Falconers and Peregrine Chicks


Tweets,

I personally object to falconers taking wild Peregrines, Gyrs, etc. It
is my understanding that captive-reared birds are readily available.
While the population of Peregrines may now be capable of sustaining a
limited harvest, it seems inappropriate that individuals in pursuit of
their sport should deprive the rest of us of the joy of enjoying a
thriving wild population. I don't object to falconry per se, just to
the harvest of wild birds for that purpose.

Gene Hunn.