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=111&year=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, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:24 PM, David La Puma ><da...@woodcreeper.com>wrote: >> >>> Lets stop the witch hunt. >>> >>> The bill is about OWLS, not ducks, not a moose, or a goose, not a >bee nor >>> a flea OWLS. >>> >>> The banning is of LURING and was written as such because BAITING >implies >>> capture, although Baiting could have just as easily have been >used. The >>> OBJECTS being banned are animated (live) or inanimate (fake lure) >which >>> implies live, dead or fabricated mice, etc. Not playback, not >iPods, not >>> your best impression of a Barred Owl. OBJECTS are clearly stated >in the >>> bill. >>> >>> It should be noted that MANY places already ban playback- like >USFWS >>> lands, and many National Parks, and many private preserves such as >High >>> Island, Texas, for instance (run by the Texas Ornithological >Society). >>> >>> The bill is about baiting (luring) owls for non-scientific >reasons. If >>> youre against that, then please contact your representatives and >support >>> the bill. If youre for that, then please contact your >representatives and >>> oppose it. >>> >>> But please, dont fall downy he slippery slope trap an owl >baiting >>> (luring) bill has NO relationship to banning duck calls, freedom >of speech, >>> public indecency laws, or your ability to hop on one foot while >birding. >>> >>> Good Birding >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> ----------------------- >>> David La Puma >>> Ornithologist >>> Madison, WI >>> da...@woodcreeper.com >>> >>> ---- >>> Join or Leave mou-net: >http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net >>> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html >>> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>*Mike Hendrickson* >> >>*Mike Hendrickson Guiding <http://mikehendricksonguiding.com>* >>*Sax-Zim Bog <http://www.sax-zimbog.com>* >> >>---- >>Join or Leave mou-net: >http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net >>Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html >> ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
