Tweets,

Since I started this thread perhaps I should offer a (final?) comment.

Our opinions about the wisdom of allowing wild birds to be "harvested" for
private use involves two quite distinct considerations.

First is the question of whether such a harvest is sustainable, that is, our
concern to protect species from extinction or dramatically reduced
populations (locally or globally) is one issue. We probably all (or nearly
all) would agree that harvests that threaten the viability of wild
populations are indefensible. A

quite distinct objection is basically aesthetic. We may find the idea of
keeping a wild bird captive for personal enjoyment offensive to our
aesthetic appreciation of "wildness." I admit that that is an important part
of my emotional reaction to plans to harvest Peregrines and other
"charismatic" wild fauna, such as Gyrfalcons. The former may still require
particular care to protect the viability of their wild populations, at least
in certain places. I don't believe that Gyrs, however, have ever been
considered threatened (globally, at least), though they are few enough south
of Canada to always count as a very special treat for the observer. Birding
is, except in a few exceptional situations, non-consumptive in a way
falconry is not. We "tick it" but leave it for the next person to enjoy. Not
so the falconer.

Of course, this aesthetic objection is quite selective. Kestrels, Red-tails,
Harris's Hawks are far less objectionable targets of falconers hobby, I
suspect, because they are both far more abundant and less "dashing." I'm
sure few if any birders would feel that twinge to learn that some hobbyist
had captured a crow or coot as their personal possession.

In other words, our reactions to the practice of falconry, particularly the
capture of wild birds, is complex. I would urge us all to recognize that
most everyone involved, birders, falconers, etc., are intelligent and caring
people and thus to avoid intemperate characterizations of the opposition.

Gene Hunn.