Muscovies

[Patrick]

Anyone hear about this? http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/reg2010/Muscovy%20Duck%20Final%20Rule%201%20March%202010.p df
I didn't read it through completely, but there seems to be no exception for domesticated varieties, or for exhibition. I suppose that the loop hole would be to say that your birds are used for their eggs, and hence food production. The law seems to favor the wild type, but a lot of the ferals I've seen are obviously escaped or derived domestics, presumably from the many small farms which keep them for food purposes, so given the very small population of wild type muscovies in captivity, how is this law supposed to in any way stop the feral muscovy problem?

[Evy]

Anyone hear about this? http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/reg2010/Muscovy%20Duck%20Final%20Rule%201%20March%202010.p df
I didn't read it through completely, but there seems to be no exception for domesticated varieties, or for exhibition. I suppose that the loop hole would be to say that your birds are used for their eggs, and hence food production. The law seems to favor the wild type, but a lot of the ferals I've seen are obviously escaped or derived domestics, presumably from the many small farms which keep them for food purposes, so given the very small population of wild type muscovies in captivity, how is this law supposed to in any way stop the feral muscovy problem?

If the inspectors are like the ones I've delt with, it'll be a joke. Most don't know one duck from another & couldn't tell a feral Muscovy from a domestic if it bit them! The sentence about drakes being poor flyers tells me they must have seen crosses or some who were living too well.

[goosedragon]

If the inspectors are like the ones I've delt with, it'll be a joke. Most don't know one duck from another & couldn't tell a feral Muscovy from a domestic if it bit them! The sentence about drakes being poor flyers tells me they must have seen crosses or some who were living too well. Please excuse the recycled answer that I wote for the less professional people on that 'other board':
Yes I had heard that it was coming, I had rather hoped that the public comments would get enough modifications into it so that it wouldn't have any real impact on the backyard duck owners. As I read the regulation it will put the Muscovy somewhere between the Mallard and the Wood Duck. I think they will remain fairly common but permits may be needed to raise and dispose of them in the future.
If I currently owned any I would be sure that they had a band that can remain on them for the rest of their life and take photographs so you can prove that you owned them before March 31, 2010. I think eventually there will be a suit filed over the right to regulate them. The government seems to be claiming that they are migratory waterfowl, like mallards and wood ducks which they have the right to regulate.(they are only considered native to 3 counties in Texas)
Other places they are claiming that they are introduced exotics like mandarin ducks and ring neck pheasants which are also split with the ducks unregulated and the pheasants covered by hunting laws.

A few years back there was a thing with the Mute Swans (introduced exotic) that were going feral. I think that was settled by requiring tame ones to be pinioned and hunters in the area of the feral populations allowed to blast any flying Mute Swan. It is the feral Muscovy that is causing the problems (And they are pests in the Southern regions). I expect many will be killed by hunters and if that reduces the population enough that will be the practical easing of the regulation and they will revert to a status like the mallard duck, covered by regulations that no one pays attention to.

In a nutshell they want to reduce ferals and people dumping Muscovies. In a sense this is just my take on it but I had correspondence with a government duck researcher in LA (state) and I can't tell you exactly which thoughts are mine. ~gd

[Evy]

Jim Konecny, Muscovy breeder, waterfowl judge & v.p. of the Call Breeders club, saw this thread & sent me this email. I thought it worth sharing...

Hi Evy, I called and talked to George Allen, Division of Migratory Birds this morning. He is the main one in charge of this regulation. He said he had no idea that exhibition type Muscovies existed. He was willing to listen to what I had to say. I had many questions as well. He explained how this is a treaty with three countries participating. Sounds like the Asian Carp dilemma in the great lakes. This regulation goes into effect the end of March, so time is a issue to get a force established. I will do my best, and put together some educational material on Muscovies. We need to make them realize domestic and Wild Muscovies are quite different. Just as all domesticated ducks derived from the wild mallard. I plan to try to get the APA, SPPA, ALBC, and who ever I can get to give our push to get our Muscovies exempt from this regulation. Pass the word on, and I will be in touch letting you know the progress. I hope all is well! Jim

[littlebit6657]

As Officers of the International Waterfowl Breeders Association, Jim K and I tried to post this thread last night, but apparently I am on moderated status and it did not get through. Because the Muscovy has been an accepted APA breed since 1874, we feel that exhibition Muscovies should be exempt from permiting in any way.

Donna

[Neil E. Grassbaugh]

I find the last two posts most gratifying. It is very admirable that the IWBA is defending its members interests by addressing this situation. I am not an IWBA member.

Now. Where the hell is the APA? I am an APA member.

Could you imagine the mobilization the ARBA would mount if domesticated guinea pigs (a South American species, like Muscovys) were being subjected to the same type of regulations?

[littlebit6657]

I would not quote me, but I was told this evening that the APA feels that only one person should be the voice on this and they have deferred it to Jim. We will be working on getting something together by monday morning.

[Omega Blue Farms]

This law could work in the standard bred muscovy's favour if handled properly by the APA and law enforcement people. It could also be used to strengthen the importance of the Standard of Perfection for fanciers.

Simply make the law exempt for Standard Bred birds. Most backyard birds do not reflect the standard and therefore would not qualify for the exemption.

How to prove that they are standard bred? Well, coop cards from sanctioned shows can work pretty well. They can get you exempted from an avian flu cull order up here.

Also, weight can be a good indicator. If a flock cannot produce birds of Standard weight, then the flock wouldn't qualify as standard bred.

Average backyarder that doesn't show? Well if a receipt can be produced showing that the birds were purchased from a recognized Standard bred flock, that would work.

I personally see this as an opportunity to "cull the herd" and increase the value of muscovy.

[goosedragon]

This Regulation shows the usefulness of all the professional Waterfowl clubs! The regulation was published for comments in August '08 and they are talking (great talkers!) about doing something NOW after the rule is Final? All the arguments against the rule should have been filed about a year ago. To try to educate the Feds at this late date is going to fail because to change it they will have to admit it was a mistake.
1. Migratory bird? I doubt it but many birds that don’t migrate are regulated under that Act
2. Non-native introduction? They exempted 3 counties in Texas because they were native there. I haven’t seen the documents but I am told they exist, Accounts of early European explorers commenting on the strange ducks that Native Americans had domesticated for use. The descriptions seem to fit the Muscovy pretty well, what else looks like a Muscovy?
3. The claim that the regulation will have minor impact “there will very minimal costs, if any, associated with this regulations change. Consequently, we certify that because this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required”
I could rant on for quite some time but it would be useless....~gd

[Evy]

This Regulation shows the usefulness of all the professional Waterfowl clubs! The regulation was published for comments in August '08 and they are talking (great talkers!) about doing something NOW after the rule is Final? All the arguments against the rule should have been filed about a year ago. To try to educate the Feds at this late date is going to fail because to change it they will have to admit it was a mistake.
1. Migratory bird? I doubt it but many birds that don’t migrate are regulated under that Act
2. Non-native introduction? They exempted 3 counties in Texas because they were native there. I haven’t seen the documents but I am told they exist, Accounts of early European explorers commenting on the strange ducks that Native Americans had domesticated for use. The descriptions seem to fit the Muscovy pretty well, what else looks like a Muscovy?
3. The claim that the regulation will have minor impact “there will very minimal costs, if any, associated with this regulations change. Consequently, we certify that because this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required”
I could rant on for quite some time but it would be useless....~gd

It's quite possible no one heard about it until now. I deal with the Fish & Wildlife Service yearly when I send in my 3-186 forms & my yearly report. The ONLY communication I EVER get from them is a request every 3 years for $$ to renew my license !

[Patrick]

I had the same question when I first posted the rule. It takes someone much more familair with the rule making process than I to be monitoring these things before hand. That's how they found out about the NAIs proposal. I too wonder how it was missed, but then I'm not the one looking for these things either. I think that it's encouraging that Jim talked to someone who seemed receptive, but I fear that it was only lip service, as once the rule is passed, it's passed. As gd said, the time to comment is long gone. As I wrote, I think we can qualify for the exception simply by saying that we use our exhibition muscovies for eggs and/or meat. It will be interesting to see how the hatcheries respond, or if they get regulated at all. I just don't see how this law will in any way stop the feral muscovy population. All of the small backyard flocks which are the source of the feral birds are presumably for eggs and/or meat, and so will be exempt, yet still contributing to the problem.

[TomNY]

The only way the APA gained entry to the NAIS Poultry Identification meeting in Riverdale MD was through a NY-NJ live market discussion group. It would have been real easy to miss that also. Tom

[TomNY]

The only way the APA gained entry to the NAIS Poultry Identification meeting in Riverdale MD was through a NY-NJ live market discussion group. It would have been real easy to miss that also. Tom

[TomNY]

I talked to Dr. Allen yesterday. He told me he is willing to consider changes in the regulation. Three major things would have to happen . First it would have to be documented that there is a domestic strain of Muscovies different from the wild flock that can be identified as domestic. The APA Standard Revision Committee is working on this. I was told it should be done by the end of this week. Second, there needs to be considerably more public input than the fourteen he received during the year the regulations were being made. More weight will be carried by sanctioning organizations such as the IWBA and APA but poultry club and show sponsors should let him know how many people have Muscovies. Input on how many non-commercial Mucovies are marketed for food would also help. Third, the states with feral Mucovy problems will have to put in place regulations and/or programs to keep them from encroaching on the wild duck habitat on a state level. This third point is the reason for FWS Muscovy regulations. Dr. Allen can be reached at George_T_Allen@FWS.gov I hope we can make a difference, Tom

[goosedragon]

I had the same question when I first posted the rule. It takes someone much more familair with the rule making process than I to be monitoring these things before hand. That's how they found out about the NAIs proposal. I too wonder how it was missed, but then I'm not the one looking for these things either. I think that it's encouraging that Jim talked to someone who seemed receptive, but I fear that it was only lip service, as once the rule is passed, it's passed. As gd said, the time to comment is long gone. As I wrote, I think we can qualify for the exception simply by saying that we use our exhibition muscovies for eggs and/or meat. It will be interesting to see how the hatcheries respond, or if they get regulated at all. I just don't see how this law will in any way stop the feral muscovy population. All of the small backyard flocks which are the source of the feral birds are presumably for eggs and/or meat, and so will be exempt, yet still contributing to the problem.Relax no hassle today. I have worked in regulated industries all my life. I think there are services that scan all new or changed Regulations printed in the Federal Register and drop you alerts on subjects or sections that you choose. I have no ideal of the costs involved since I was always alerted by Corporate or Trade Groups. I would think it would have to be computer based since the sheer amount consists of at least a large book DAILY and I don't think anyone could read it all and remain sane. Perhaps the APA could look into such a service? I don't know how I became aware of the rule while it was still in the proposed stage but I never dreamed it would sneak through with so little comment!

[Evy]

Relax no hassle today. I have worked in regulated industries all my life. I think there are services that scan all new or changed Regulations printed in the Federal Register and drop you alerts on subjects or sections that you choose. I have no ideal of the costs involved since I was always alerted by Corporate or Trade Groups. I would think it would have to be computer based since the sheer amount consists of at least a large book DAILY and I don't think anyone could read it all and remain sane. Perhaps the APA could look into such a service? I don't know how I became aware of the rule while it was still in the proposed stage but I never dreamed it would sneak through with so little comment!

Sneaking through with little or no comment is how most everything gets done !

[richbar]

I foind this one part, near the end of the order the most disturbing:
(c) Disposal of muscovy ducks. You
may donate muscovy ducks taken under
this order to public museums or public
institutions for scientific or educational
purposes, or you may dispose of them
by burying or incinerating them. You
may not retain for personal use or
consumption, offer for sale, or sell a
muscovy duck removed under authority
of this section, nor may you release it
in any other location.

One other problem that I see with this law is that while it may have been written for wild type muscoveys, there are feral ducks out there and while it may be easier to diferentiate between wild and domestic types, it will be extremely difficult to diferentiate between feral and domestic types because the feral ducks are just domestic escapees. We have done such a great job controling feral hogs in this country that it makes me a little scared, especially if you can't use them for personal use or consumption. Big brother might be looking in your freezer to determine if you have a muscovey in there. What the heck is wrong with these wildlife people? When are they ever going to learn how to identify the various breeds? I had a friend who they attempted to fine for having mallards (actually gray call ducks) black ducks (actually east indies) in pennsylvania once. You'd think that the individuals in charge would know something about the rural community. Oh well, I've even seen USDA posters that misidentified different breeds of chickens. I think the more people that jump on this the better. APA needs to get involved along with the IWBA. The more noise, the more likely Fish and Wildlife will realize how stupid they are. Sorry, but this just rubbed me wrong.

[TomNY]

I just spent close to an hour having my call forwarded to different people at NYS Ag and markets and NYSDEC.Finally reached the voicemail of the one who should know how the new regulations will impact NY muscovy breeders. If enough of us get involved it will make a difference. Tom

[JonAld]

Found this in there too so its kinda contradicting itself.

(g) You may not acquire or possess
live muscovy ducks, their carcasses or
parts, or their eggs, except to raise them
to be sold as food, and except that you
may possess any live muscovy duck that
you lawfully acquired prior to March
31, 2010. If you possess muscovy ducks
on that date, you may not propagate
them or sell or transfer them to anyone
for any purpose, except to be used as
food. You may not release them to the
wild, sell them to be hunted or released
to the wild, or transfer them to anyone
to be hunted or released to the wild.

I think if you raise show birds and cull the extras for meat you could propagate them fro the use of food. But still show them

[goosedragon]

Sneaking through with little or no comment is how most everything gets done ! Yep government by sneaking it through and ramming it through despite logical arguements pretty much describes the current state of affairs.

[teacher77520]

Would suggest that if all the US Fish and Game Agents went visiting backyard poultry collections with a muscovy or two "maybe" there.....most would retire prior to visiting the last spot!! As for an encroaching "wild" population, what a joke...they are straight out of Uncle Jack and Aunt Ginny's backyard flock....JT from East Texas (best sitters I ever had other that cochins!!)
Would suggest they need to get back on the several infectious bird diseases that they get so upset about....only when there is a really big outbreak...not when they have it nipped in the bud but need to finish the very last area...but disregard...therefore it starts back up again....

[littlebit6657]

I just wanted to update everyone. We electronically sent Mr. Allen information on friday concerning the standard bred muscovies and followed up with a phone call. Mr. Allen was out of the office so Jim will be calling him monday morning to follow up.

FYI. When Jim first talked to Mr. Allen he stated that he had no idea that there were standard bred muscovies that were exhibited, nor had he ever heard of the APA.

Donna

[littlebit6657]

Update as of today from the Fish & Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program Website http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

As a result of information received since publication of the final rules, the Service has decided to amend the regulations restricting possession, propagation and sale of muscovy ducks. Therefore, we will not restrict possession or issue permits for propagation and sale of muscovies at this time. However, to reduce their spread, the revision to 50 CFR 21.14(g) prohibiting release of captive-bred muscovy ducks to the wild, including for hunting, will be implemented.

Donna

[batesbrowns]

Hooray for that!!
Thanks to everyone who commented on this
Thanks
Jacob