[mou-net] Luring Owls Legislation
Hi all, I wish to thank everyone for the informative discussion on this pending legislation. I value the listserv for the many observations that come to me about what is being seen, but also for discussions such as this that inform us about pending decisions that might impact us. I for one participate in and coordinate several studies that collect data on birds and other animals and even plants. I have also led many field trips mostly for kids, but often of adults. I occasional use recordings for call backs, but mostly I generate my own noises. I mostly use the recordings to introduce people to what they should be listening for. I have introduced several people to where and how to find owls, which usually involves in prompting the owls to respond to my whistles. I am lucky to know my state senator well. Whenever he (and his wife) see me, they first tell me what birds they are seeing around their house. I am planning on writing him a letter about this legislation. Steve Weston On Quigley Lake in Eagan, MN swest...@comcast.net Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Eclipse
Awesome Eclipse tonight. Hope all owls are enjoying it... Holly Peirson Columbus, SE Anoka Co Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] Koochiching Cty. Grosbeaks/Owl Luring Bill
Good numbers of evening grosbeaks, more swans than I've seen in 30+ years and pelicans returned last week GEE Whiz lets bait the baiters. If it not anti logging rants which I ignored this year. Its now lets let the public know how unethical we really are (but were ethical in our own eyes). There is an existing law about not harassing wildlife, It would just be more enforceable with the new legislation. Alter the existing law to address owl baiting. Lets keep our wildlife (raptors) wild by not feeding them or messing with their routine. No wonder Sax-Zim is such a popular place for owls - they get fed by people there! Can I charge more for guiding if I bring owls within 10 feet of you? So many questions and so many opinions. From the Pine Island Bog where the owls are pretty much left in peace to carry on in a natural fashion and not many people cry about logging except for how hard it is (human nature I guess). Not a Logger, maybe a bird guide or bird baiter? Have a Great day Tom Crumpton Original Message From: michaelleehendrick...@gmail.com To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] Owl Luring Bill Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:36:54 -0500 David: First part of the Amendment for HF 2582 8.3(a) A person may not intentionally lure or feed an owl in the wild with any animate 8.4or inanimate object, food, or animal. A person in violation of this section is guilty of a 8.5petty misdemeanor. Definition of Lure from the Webster Dictionary. 1lure *noun* \'lu?r\ : an appealing or attractive quality : a device used for attracting and catching animals, birds, or especially fish So to lure would mean to use a device for ATTRACTING and catching animals, birds or especially fish. So on line 8.3(a) where it mentions lure we can use the definition from Webster's Dictionary and then go to the next line, 8.4 or inanimate object which could mean artificial lures like home-made mice decoys attached to fishing line or it can also include portable CD players, Smart Phones, tape players and IPads that use CDs, cassettes or owl song applications. Actually no David there are no examples of inanimate objects in this amendment. Not one example and the way its written its to vague to define what the law is actually focusing on. We know the bill mentions examples of animate objects ( food, living and frozen animal ) but no examples of inanimate objects. Again inanimate object is included with food or animal. So a inanimate object includes any sound device, decoy, or a robot owl (LOL). There is no definition nor examples of inanimate objects the bill is referring too! Yes anyone who uses any tapes for any night time owl prowl walks during the spring time will no longer be able to use them. Any spring owl censusing will no longer be able to use owl tapes to lure or attract an owl unless you have a permit. No longer will tour leaders, guides, volunteer leaders at nature centers or state park volunteers will be able to use owl tapes to lure an owl in for education purposes. You will no longer be able to answer back Barred Owls to lure them from their known location to your location. No longer will you be able to whistle in N. Saw Whet Owls for CBCs or Big Days in MN. As far as I know there is not one place in Minnesota that bans taping of birds including owls. Until this HR 2582 is rewritten and not done so in some quick fashion as they clearly shown by how vague it is. This amendment needs to go back to those who wrote and use some research and data to back it up. Wait there is no research or data to prove that luring an owl or feeding an owl is harmful just a lot of erroneous claims and assumptions. I have a very good friend who is very close to State Rep. Rick Nolan and also works for him. We talked today and he is sending my letter to some folks in the MN House and Senate. I sent my letter to all 134 members of the House and gotten favorable replies. So we will see what happens or if anything happens by May 26th. By the way I found some owl nests belonging to owls that were fed for nearly 4 months during the winter season and while I was observing them yesterday that these owls should of died by now but there they were actively hunting wild rodents on their own while the females were on nests. So does feeding owls harm them? Well for these northern owls -- they were not effected despite all the free offers they fed on during winter season. By the way I ask you to read this article: http://moumn.org/loon/view_frame.php?block=111year=1997 ( I was strongly oppose to this event and made a lot of people angry at me at the time. Where was the DNR and all those oppose to this back then? That's right there were fewer photographers back then and digital photography was not so popular like it is today. Every birder I meet these days owns a digital camera and photographs birds. So please contact your local representative and say NO to this poorly written bill. Mike On Mon,
[mou-net] MN's Rusty Blackbird Survey
Today is *technically* the last day to observe Rusty Blackbirds in Minnesota to be included in the Rusty Blackbird Spring Migration Blitz. However, as all of you are well aware, spring is slow this year. Therefore, I encourage you to continue watching for Rusty Blackbirds through the end of the month. When you do (or don't) see Rusty Blackbirds, submit your sightings to www.eBird.org. The sooner you can enter your data, the better; leaders of the International Rusty Blackbird Working Group are currently applying for grants and are using results from this blitz as support to receive grants. Checklists containing Rusty Blackbirds are more widespread in Wisconsin than Minnesota at the moment, but I think we are catching up quickly. I was just e-mailing with a birder who had 50+ Rusty Blackbirds in her backyard near Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, so they are definitely starting to move through in numbers! The Rusty Blackbird carving trophy is finished and will go to the state that submits the most eBird checklists containing Rusty Blackbirds. If you are unfamiliar with eBird, where to look for Rusties, how to identify them, or if you simply want to share your sightings with me, feel free to shoot me an e-mail. You may find the official spring blitz website helpful as well: http://rustyblackbird.org/outreach/migration-blitz/. Thanks for all of your effort! Alyssa DeRubeis Lake Mills, IA Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] FW: purple martins
From: Madeleine Linck Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:17 PM Subject: purple martins One adult male, one adult female Purple Martin now back at the martin colony on Medicine Lake, French Regional Park in Plymouth. Now we need warmer weather and insects... Madeleine Linck Wildlife Technician Three Rivers Park District 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, MN 55441 763-694-7851 mli...@threeriversparkdistrict.orgmailto:mli...@threeriversparkdistrict.org Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Changes to Amendment
Hi all, I passed your concerns on to the amendment's author, Michael Furtman. He spoke with the DNR today, with whom he has been working closely on this amendment. They have decided to slightly change the wording so it obviously applies only to visual luring. --- Debbie Petersen Laporte, MN Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] EURASIAN TREE SPARROW, Passer montanus, Polk County, 4/15/14
I was fortunate enough to spot and photograph an adult EURASIAN TREE SPARROW at the bird feeders on the University of Minnesota Crookston campus this afternoon. John Loegering and Sandy Aubol were able to come and take photographs as well. The bird was foraging with dark-eyed juncos, a fox sparrow, and house sparrows. The bird was noticeably more petite in overall size and bill size than adjacent house sparrows, with a back patterning more in line with what I would expect with a chipping sparrow. Rufous cap and black cheek dots immediately set the bird apart from other sparrows. The bird was close enough to identify naked-eye. NOTE: If you intend to look for this bird, please be aware that campus is closed Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for a holiday weekend. Campus will be open tomorrow from 8AM to 5PM, and normal scheduling will resume on Monday, 4/21/14. The bird is viewable without entering the buildings, however, please email me (vl...@crk.umn.edu) if you intend to visit so I can give you additional instructions. Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29551014@N07/13882690715/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/29551014@N07/13882753713/ Happy birding! ~Vanessa Lane Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment
Hello: All birds including owls are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html) Specific provisions in the statute include: - Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. (16 U.S.C. 703) HF 2582 regardless of the way it is written now or what changes Michael Furtman and the DNR make today or tomorrow to the bill it is adding more restrictions on how we observe owls when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has been protecting owls in Minnesota for a very very long time. Great Gray Owls, Snowy Owls, Boreal Owls and Northern Hawk Owls populations have not suffered because who is feeding them a mouse for observation, images, research and education!! There is also not one research paper to prove that feeding an owl a mouse is harmful to them maybe for some it is unethical but that is another topic. Why is the DNR interested in adding more protection to one group of birds based on no research or data when the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 has been doing a great job already protecting our birds in Minnesota? Should not the real fight be in regards to the owl's welfare is to use all this energy and protect their habitat from logging and development in Minnesota? Currently in Sax-Zim Bog all the bog woods along the Admiral Rd where known Great Gray Owls are nesting currently will be up for logging bids within 10 years from now! Should not the DNR use all their influence and muscle to protect nesting habitats of owls in MN instead of wasting their time and energy to preventing a handful of photographers in MN to feed an owl a mouse? Should not that be the real fight? Like I said the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 is currently protecting owls and all songbirds that reside in MN. Adding more restrictions like this is not the fight I want the DNR to focus on. I would prefer to see our public servants like the DNR be more proactive and use their energy and time and protect habitat NOT pushing a bill that has no effects on the owl's welfare. Like I mentioned in my last post to this listserv, I am currently monitoring an owl's nest in Minnesota. This owl from what I have been told, has been fed numerous times off and on in the last 4 months. ( Mid December to Mid March ). When I apply all the claims and reasons why feeding an owl is detrimental to the health to an owl and how feeding owls will effect their behavior, well this owl should of died long time ago but yet it is currently defending a nesting territory, feeding his mate who is on the nest and actively catching live mice. I have been observing the effects of owls after they been given free handouts all winter season during last several years and I have yet to see any harm to them health wise and behavior wise. If the DNR wants to protect the owls from this kind of activity by a handful of people in MN then why not broaden it to all raptors? Some people in Minnesota toss fish out to Bald Eagles along the Mississippi River for images. Some people put mice out to Rough-legged Hawks and other raptors for photos. Why not broaden it too all raptors in MN? Why just owls? Again this is not a bill we need to protect the owl's welfare, the real fight is protecting habitat for the owls in MN. The time is coming when birders driving up the Admiral Rd in Sax-Zim Bog will be able to view Byrn's Greenhouse on CR 7 by looking to the east and birders will be able to wave at other birders on the McDavitt Rd by looking to the west with no black spruces, tamaracks and cedars obstructing their view. Great Gray Owls (the mascot of Sax-Zim Bog) will be driven out of their habitat because all the trees they use to nest in or roost in are all logged out. YES people, all the bog habitat along the Admiral Road on both sides will be open for logging bids in 10 years from now! So while Michael Furtman and the DNR can dance around and celebrate the passing of this needless bill, the Great Gray Owls, N. Hawk Owls, N. Saw Whet Owls, and Long-eared Owls will not be around for anyone to view or feed them a mouse. Again where is the real fight? This is a needless bill that will have no effect on the owl's welfare! Call your local representative and tell him/her to vote NO on HF 2582. Thank You On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Debbie Petersen dlpeterse...@gmail.comwrote: Hi all, I passed your concerns on to the
Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment
As many have already pointed out, this Listerv is not the place for this kind of rhetoric and arguments. Those of us who want to receive and share bird sightings should not have to be subjected to it. Please take it off the listserv if you want to continue these discussions on a personal level. ~Meriah You've gotta live light enough to see the humor, and long enough to see some change-Ani Difranco From: Michael Hendrickson michaelleehendrick...@gmail.com To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment Hello: All birds including owls are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html) Specific provisions in the statute include: - Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. (16 U.S.C. 703) HF 2582 regardless of the way it is written now or what changes Michael Furtman and the DNR make today or tomorrow to the bill it is adding more restrictions on how we observe owls when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has been protecting owls in Minnesota for a very very long time. Great Gray Owls, Snowy Owls, Boreal Owls and Northern Hawk Owls populations have not suffered because who is feeding them a mouse for observation, images, research and education!! There is also not one research paper to prove that feeding an owl a mouse is harmful to them maybe for some it is unethical but that is another topic. Why is the DNR interested in adding more protection to one group of birds based on no research or data when the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 has been doing a great job already protecting our birds in Minnesota? Should not the real fight be in regards to the owl's welfare is to use all this energy and protect their habitat from logging and development in Minnesota? Currently in Sax-Zim Bog all the bog woods along the Admiral Rd where known Great Gray Owls are nesting currently will be up for logging bids within 10 years from now! Should not the DNR use all their influence and muscle to protect nesting habitats of owls in MN instead of wasting their time and energy to preventing a handful of photographers in MN to feed an owl a mouse? Should not that be the real fight? Like I said the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 is currently protecting owls and all songbirds that reside in MN. Adding more restrictions like this is not the fight I want the DNR to focus on. I would prefer to see our public servants like the DNR be more proactive and use their energy and time and protect habitat NOT pushing a bill that has no effects on the owl's welfare. Like I mentioned in my last post to this listserv, I am currently monitoring an owl's nest in Minnesota. This owl from what I have been told, has been fed numerous times off and on in the last 4 months. ( Mid December to Mid March ). When I apply all the claims and reasons why feeding an owl is detrimental to the health to an owl and how feeding owls will effect their behavior, well this owl should of died long time ago but yet it is currently defending a nesting territory, feeding his mate who is on the nest and actively catching live mice. I have been observing the effects of owls after they been given free handouts all winter season during last several years and I have yet to see any harm to them health wise and behavior wise. If the DNR wants to protect the owls from this kind of activity by a handful of people in MN then why not broaden it to all raptors? Some people in Minnesota toss fish out to Bald Eagles along the Mississippi River for images. Some people put mice out to Rough-legged Hawks and other raptors for photos. Why not broaden it too all raptors in MN? Why just owls? Again this is not a bill we need to protect the owl's welfare, the real fight is protecting habitat for the owls in MN. The time is coming when birders driving up the Admiral Rd in Sax-Zim Bog will be able to view Byrn's Greenhouse on CR 7 by looking to the east and birders will be able to wave at other birders on the McDavitt Rd by looking to the west with no black spruces, tamaracks and cedars obstructing their view. Great Gray Owls (the mascot of Sax-Zim Bog) will be driven out of their habitat because all the trees they use to nest in or roost in are all logged out. YES people, all the bog habitat along the Admiral Road on
[mou-net] Winter Wren, Bass Ponds (Hennepin County)
A Winter Wren was observed at the Minnesota River Valley NWR Bass Ponds (Long Meadow Lake Unit) this afternoon. The bird was actively foraging in and around the stream in the thicket just downstream of the small bridge, which is east of the entrance shelter. Also seen: Among other species, Hermit Thrushes, Eastern Phoebes, Ruby-crowned Kinglets, Yellow-rumped Warblers, Blue-winged Teal. A warning: A large, white dog not on a leash was threatening walkers on the path around the Big Bass Pond just below the farm. Good birding to all... Rob Daves South Minneapolis Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Louisiana Waterthrush, Oakdale
eBird regional volunteer is still evaluating the provided details, but my wife and I spotted what we believe to be a Louisiana Waterthrush this evening at Oakdale Nature Preserve on Hadley Avenue this evening. I can say beyond a doubt it was a Waterthrush. Field marks of bright pinkish legs and a consistent clean white supercillium pointed me towards Louisiana after reviewing the Sibley guide at home. No pictures as I was just on a walk with my wife. Viewing was done from 15' for 7 minutes and afforded great looks with my new 10x50 Vortex Razor HD binoculars. The bird was hanging out near a standing pool of water just off the paved trail about 100yards or so behind and past the basketball court at the back of the park. I have birded this park for over two years at all times of the year and never seen this species or the Northern in the park. It would appear this is one of the earliest on record for this species in this area. Also of note, I did some eBird data research and find sightings for Louisiana in WI and IA in the last five days or so, but zero for Northern in any of the border states yet this year, lending at least some viability to it being a Louisiana that perhaps got a bit over zealous in travel plans. Also of note this evening... 7 Sapsucker 6 Hermit Thrush 5 Eastern Phoebe 3 Yellow-rumped warbler Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Big Willow Park, Minnetonka
Big Willow Park, Minnetonka First of all when leaving at 5:30 to walk the dog at Big Willow, I forgot my binoculars! So it will just be a brisk walk of 2 miles in a beautiful place. Toward the end of our walk we were along a wooded path beside Minnehaha Creek when a small bird landed not six feet in front of me. It was a Golden-crowned Kinglet with crest raised as it jumped from branch to branch. This is the closest I have been to this bird and it made the lack of binoculars superfluous. Ten feet later a Brown Creeper landed again right in front of me. We then flushed two Hermit Thrushes. What luck! Bird List Mallard 2 Downy WP 1 Eastern Phoebe 1 B-c Chickadee 2 W-b Nuthatch 2 Brown Creeper 3 Golden-crowned Kinglet 3 FOY Hermit Thrush 2 FOY A Robin 4 N Cardinal 2 Ken Larson and Comet (yellow Lab) Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Unsubscribe
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
[mou-net] Yellow rumped warblers on ice
Saw my second yellow rumped warbler of the season on the pond at the end of Heinel Ave in Roseville, (the Central Park extension on the far SW end of Lake Owasso) apparently foraging on the ice that I assume formed overnight. Saw several fox sparrows as well. Also saw another yellow rumped warbler as I exited the floodplain portion of the Mazomani trail just south of the glacial boldder in the Louisville Swamp MN Valley Wildlife Refuge Unit near Chaska along with a sedge wren on Sunday. Other birds seen or heard (forgot my binocs in my haste to get on the trail at 4:30 p.m.) were sandhill cranes, wood ducks, cormorants, chickadees, robins, red wing black birds and blue winged teal. Note the long absent bridge(s) on the south end of the trail have finally been replaced but the causeway/dam across the north end of the Louisville Swamp lake has been breached and can no longer be crossed (to the Jabs Farm site), which turned my 4 1/2 mile hike into a 7 mile one. Despite the time of year, the entire trail besides the breached causeway/dam was dry and easily passable. Keith Carlson, Roseville, MN Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment
Correct me if I am wrong but many owl species and other raptors were not added to the MBTA until 1974, not 1918 as suggested in the previous post. -Original Message- From: Minnesota Birds [mailto:MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Michael Hendrickson Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:51 PM To: MOU-NET@LISTS.UMN.EDU Subject: Re: [mou-net] Changes to Amendment Hello: All birds including owls are all protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html) Specific provisions in the statute include: - Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. (16 U.S.C. 703) HF 2582 regardless of the way it is written now or what changes Michael Furtman and the DNR make today or tomorrow to the bill it is adding more restrictions on how we observe owls when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 has been protecting owls in Minnesota for a very very long time. Great Gray Owls, Snowy Owls, Boreal Owls and Northern Hawk Owls populations have not suffered because who is feeding them a mouse for observation, images, research and education!! There is also not one research paper to prove that feeding an owl a mouse is harmful to them maybe for some it is unethical but that is another topic. Why is the DNR interested in adding more protection to one group of birds based on no research or data when the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 has been doing a great job already protecting our birds in Minnesota? Should not the real fight be in regards to the owl's welfare is to use all this energy and protect their habitat from logging and development in Minnesota? Currently in Sax-Zim Bog all the bog woods along the Admiral Rd where known Great Gray Owls are nesting currently will be up for logging bids within 10 years from now! Should not the DNR use all their influence and muscle to protect nesting habitats of owls in MN instead of wasting their time and energy to preventing a handful of photographers in MN to feed an owl a mouse? Should not that be the real fight? Like I said the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 is currently protecting owls and all songbirds that reside in MN. Adding more restrictions like this is not the fight I want the DNR to focus on. I would prefer to see our public servants like the DNR be more proactive and use their energy and time and protect habitat NOT pushing a bill that has no effects on the owl's welfare. Like I mentioned in my last post to this listserv, I am currently monitoring an owl's nest in Minnesota. This owl from what I have been told, has been fed numerous times off and on in the last 4 months. ( Mid December to Mid March ). When I apply all the claims and reasons why feeding an owl is detrimental to the health to an owl and how feeding owls will effect their behavior, well this owl should of died long time ago but yet it is currently defending a nesting territory, feeding his mate who is on the nest and actively catching live mice. I have been observing the effects of owls after they been given free handouts all winter season during last several years and I have yet to see any harm to them health wise and behavior wise. If the DNR wants to protect the owls from this kind of activity by a handful of people in MN then why not broaden it to all raptors? Some people in Minnesota toss fish out to Bald Eagles along the Mississippi River for images. Some people put mice out to Rough-legged Hawks and other raptors for photos. Why not broaden it too all raptors in MN? Why just owls? Again this is not a bill we need to protect the owl's welfare, the real fight is protecting habitat for the owls in MN. The time is coming when birders driving up the Admiral Rd in Sax-Zim Bog will be able to view Byrn's Greenhouse on CR 7 by looking to the east and birders will be able to wave at other birders on the McDavitt Rd by looking to the west with no black spruces, tamaracks and cedars obstructing their view. Great Gray Owls (the mascot of Sax-Zim Bog) will be driven out of their habitat because all the trees they use to nest in or roost in are all logged out. YES people, all the bog habitat along the Admiral Road on both sides will be open for logging bids in 10 years from now! So while Michael Furtman and the DNR can dance around and celebrate the passing of this needless bill, the Great Gray Owls, N. Hawk
