Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry, 59448-59477 [E8-23226]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59448-59477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23226]



[[Page 59447]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Parts 21 and 22



Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry; 
Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 8, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 59448]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 21 and 22

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0039] [91200-1231-9BPP]
RIN 1018-AG11


Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the Regulations Governing 
Falconry

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, change the regulations 
governing falconry in the United States. We have reorganized the 
regulations and added or changed some provisions in them. In 
particular, we have eliminated the requirement for a Federal permit to 
practice falconry. The changes will make it easier to understand the 
requirements for the practice of falconry, including take of raptors 
from the wild, and the procedures for obtaining a falconry permit. This 
rule also adds a provision allowing us to approve falconry regulations 
that Indian Tribes or U.S. territories adopt. State, tribal, or 
territorial laws and regulations governing falconry must meet the 
standards in these regulations by January 1, 2014, at which time the 
Federal permit program will be discontinued.

DATES: These regulations are effective November 7, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. George T. Allen, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, at 703-358-1825.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Federal agency with the 
primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority is 
based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), 
which implements conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, 
Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). Raptors (birds of prey) are 
afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the Convention for 
the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, February 7, 1936, 
United States--Mexico, as amended; the Convention between the United 
States and Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of 
Extinction and Their Environment, September 19, 1974; and the 
Convention Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics (Russia) Concerning the Conservation of Migratory 
Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 1976.
    The taking and possession of raptors are strictly prohibited except 
as permitted under regulations implementing the MBTA. The regulations 
govern the issuance of permits for activities with migratory birds. 
They are in title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 10, 13, 21, 
and 22. Raptors also may be protected by State, tribal, and territorial 
regulations.
    Our authority also is based on the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 
Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). The Eagle Act extends additional protections 
for bald eagles and golden eagles, and addresses some human activities 
that may affect these species. The Act specifies circumstances under 
which falconers may take golden eagles from the wild.
    We proposed revisions to the regulations governing falconry on 
February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978-6992). We did so to address changes in the 
practice of falconry and to respond to a request from the Association 
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies that we consider eliminating duplicative 
Federal/State falconry permitting. The rule was open for comment for 90 
days.
    Regulations for falconry schools are not covered under this rule. 
We have concluded that falconry schools are most appropriately 
addressed under regulations governing education with migratory birds, 
and these regulations are under development.

II. Changes in the Regulations Governing Falconry

    We have rewritten the regulations in plain language and have 
changed or added some provisions. The following are notable substantive 
changes. In this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, ``States'' refers 
to States, the District of Columbia, and territories under the 
jurisdiction of the United States.
    1. After adoption of these regulations, a State, tribal, or 
territorial falconry permit will suffice for the practice of falconry. 
A dual State/Federal permitting system has been in place since 
implementation of Federal regulations governing falconry. Every State 
government except that of Hawaii has now implemented regulations 
governing falconry. The government of the District of Columbia has not 
implemented regulations governing falconry. To allow falconry, States, 
tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia must operate within 
the bounds of the Federal regulations. We have concluded that with 
State, tribal, and territorial permitting in place (if tribes or 
territories choose to do so), we can reduce the paperwork burden on 
permittees and the Service, and can eliminate the cost of a Federal 
permit for falconry permittees. No tribe or territory has sought to 
establish falconry regulations, but this rule makes it clear that they 
can do so.
    2. This rule implements electronic reporting of acquisition, 
transfer, or loss of raptors held for falconry. Electronic reporting 
will eliminate the need for permittees to send us paper reports for 
these actions, though some may still have to mail completed forms to 
their State or tribal governments if those entities require signed 3-
186A forms. Implementing electronic reporting for transactions under 
the falconry regulations will reduce permittee expenses and the time it 
takes to report. We will maintain the 3-186A reporting system. The 
States, tribes, or territories will need to regularly update 
information on falconry permittees. We will not allow submission of 
paper 3-186A forms after these regulations are in effect in a State or 
territory or by a tribe. However, the States, tribes, or territories 
may choose to accept paper 3-186A forms. If a State, tribe, or 
territory chooses to do so, it will be responsible for entering the 
data into the electronic 3-186A system.
    3. We will allow Apprentice Falconers to possess additional species 
of Falconiformes and Strigiformes taken from the wild.
    4. Apprentice Falconers may possess non-imprinted captive-bred 
raptors of the species they are allowed to possess.
    5. The regulations add requirements for capture and possession of 
golden eagles to use in falconry for Master Falconers with sufficient 
experience. Previously, they were covered in 50 CFR 22.24. We 
simplified the regulations in 50 CFR 22.24 to account for this change, 
which will facilitate permitting by the States, tribes, and 
territories. We will no longer require Federal permitting of falconers 
for possession of golden eagles.
    6. The regulations allow Master Falconers to keep up to 5 wild 
raptors to use in falconry. Currently, Master Falconers are allowed to 
keep 3 raptors for falconry. Allowing the possession of 5 wild raptors 
does not change the allowed annual take of 2 raptors from the wild each 
year (Sec.  21.29 (e)(2)).
    7. A Master Falconer may possess any number of captive-bred raptors 
if they are used in falconry. Allowing the possession of captive-bred 
raptors does not change the allowed annual take of 2 raptors from the 
wild or the level of care we require (Sec.  21.29 (e)(2)).
    8. General Falconers may keep 3 raptors to use in falconry. 
Allowing the

[[Page 59449]]

possession of 3 raptors does not change the allowed annual take of 2 
raptors from the wild.
    9. Each State, tribe, or territory may develop and administer the 
required examination for Apprentice Falconers and new residents. 
Changes in the examination a State, tribe, or territory administers 
will require our approval (Sec.  21.29 (b)(4)(ii)).
    10. A new resident of the United States can qualify for a falconry 
permit appropriate for his or her level of experience. The applicant 
must correctly answer at least 80 percent of the questions on the 
supervised examination for Apprentice Falconers. The State, tribe, or 
territory under which the applicant wishes to obtain a falconry permit 
administers the examination. If the applicant passes the test, the 
State, tribe, or territory may decide what level of falconry permit he 
or she may hold, consistent with the guidelines set forth in these 
regulations (Sec.  21.29 (c)(6)).
    11. We rewrote and simplified the facilities and equipment 
requirements to make them easier to understand (Sec.  21.29 (c)). We do 
not intend to require rebuilding of existing facilities if a State has 
approved them.
    12. Possession of facilities for housing raptors will not be a 
prerequisite for obtaining a permit. However, a permittee must have 
facilities that pass State, tribal, or territorial inspection before he 
or she may obtain a raptor for use in falconry. This change will allow 
former falconers who no longer can keep falconry raptors to get a 
falconry permit and assist Apprentice Falconers in learning about the 
practice of falconry (Sec.  21.29 (c)(5)(ii)).
    13. We removed the 180-day-per-year limit on take of raptors from 
the wild. Raptors may be taken for falconry during periods specified by 
the States, tribes, or territories. The 180-day restriction 
unnecessarily limits the governance of take by States, tribes, or 
territories. We believe it is reasonable for them to be able to 
regulate take from the wild when different raptor species are present. 
The 180-day restriction limits the ability of a State, tribe, or 
territory to do so.
    14. When flown for falconry, a hybrid raptor must have two attached 
radio transmitters that will allow the permittee to locate it. We 
prohibit intentional permanent release of hybrids to the wild (Sec.  
21.29 (e)(8) and (e)(9)(iv)).
    15. Falconers will be responsible for treatment and rehabilitation 
costs of falconry raptors injured in trapping efforts.
    16. This rule requires banding or microchipping of all goshawks 
taken from the wild. We eliminated the requirement to band golden 
eagles taken from the wild. Goshawk numbers in parts of the country and 
law enforcement concerns over take and transport of goshawks have led 
us to require banding of goshawks taken out of the wild. However, very 
few golden eagles are taken from the wild each year, and we deem 
banding them unnecessary at present (Sec.  21.29 (c)(7)(i)).
    17. The rule allows temporary release of falconry raptors to the 
wild (``hacking'') for both wild-caught birds and captive-bred birds 
(Sec.  21.29 (f)(2)).
    18. General and Master Falconers may use suitable raptors in raptor 
propagation if the propagator has a raptor propagation permit. The 
raptors do not need to be transferred from the falconer's falconry 
permit if they are used temporarily in propagation.
    19. A falconer may transfer most raptors captured from the wild 
under a falconry permit to a propagation permit only after they have 
been used in falconry for at least 2 years (Sec.  21.29 (f)(5)(i)). 
Previously, raptors taken for falconry could be transferred to another 
permit type immediately after capture. With this change, we are 
addressing State concerns over take under falconry permits and 
immediate transfer to propagation permits. This has been used to 
circumvent State review of take of raptors for the wild for use in 
propagation. The 2-year restriction and the limits on possession 
together will mean that falconers will be limited in their abilities to 
take birds from the wild for use in propagation.
    20. General and Master Falconers may use suitable raptors they 
possess in conservation education programs without an additional permit 
(Sec.  21.29 (f)(8)(i)). An apprentice falconer may present 
conservation education programs and use a raptor he or she possesses if 
he or she is under the supervision of a General or Master Falconer when 
presenting the program (Sec.  21.29 (f)(8)(ii)). The raptors must be 
used in hunting; they may not be held under a falconry permit to be 
used primarily for conservation education purposes. Falconers can serve 
a role in educating the public about the roles raptors play in the 
environment and their legal protections. Any bird held primarily for 
education must be held under a Special Purpose education permit.
    21. We lowered the age for Apprentice Falconers from 14 to 12 
(Sec.  21.29 (c)(3)(i)(A)).
    22. A visitor to the United States with a falconry permit from his 
or her country may practice falconry in the United States if the State, 
tribe, or territory allows it (Sec.  21.29 (f)(14)).
    23. We added a provision for immediate restoration of revoked 
permits. This change is to make it clear that restoration of an 
individual's permit after the end of a revocation period is at the 
discretion of the State, tribe, or territory (Sec.  21.29 (i)).
    24. We revised the definitions of the terms ``falconry'' and 
``raptor,'' and added definitions of the terms ``hacking,'' ``hybrid,'' 
and ``imprint.''
    25. General and Master Falconers may assist Federal- and State-
permitted migratory bird rehabilitators in conditioning of raptors for 
permanent release to the wild. A falconer may work with a rehabilitator 
without being a subpermittee of the rehabilitator (Sec.  21.31 (e)(3)).
    Because it will take time for States to change their falconry 
regulations to comply with these regulations, the final compliance date 
for these regulations is January 1, 2014.
    Each State, tribe, or territory that wishes to allow the practice 
of falconry must work with us to ensure correct operation of electronic 
reporting of take of raptors from the wild, and must then certify to 
the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it is in 
compliance with the new regulations. Any State certified to allow 
falconry under the Federal falconry regulations in Sec. Sec.  21.28, 
21.29, and 22.24 of this part prior to the effective date may continue 
to allow falconry under those provisions until we approve that State's 
recertification, or until January 1, 2014. Falconry shall not be 
permitted in a State or territory or by a Tribe after January 1, 2014, 
until that State, tribe, or territory develops a permitting program 
that the Director has certified to be in compliance with these 
regulations.

III. Changes from the Proposed Rule

    We made many wording changes and small organizational changes from 
the proposed rule. Major changes from the proposed rule are limited.
    1. We added territories to those entities that may promulgate 
falconry regulations.
    2. We changed the possession limit for General Falconers from 2 
raptors to 3.
    3. We deferred to numerous comments about the provisions for review 
of State, tribal, or territorial permitting and suspension of 
permitting. We changed the language about the reviews to allow the 
States, tribes, and territories to work with us to correct permitting 
deficiencies, should they occur.

[[Page 59450]]

    4. Many commenters suggested that the proposed change in the 
regulations that would require more experience to advance to General 
Falconer was not warranted. We agreed with the prevailing comments on 
this point, and revised the amount of experience required to advance to 
General Falconer.
    5. We added a facilities inspection requirement for falconers who 
spend 120 days or more at another location with any of their falconry 
raptors.
    6. Some commenters were opposed to the annual reporting each year 
on golden eagle trapping activities required in addition to 3-186A 
reports. We agreed with their argument, and deleted the requirement 
from these regulations. We will compile information on take of eagles 
through the electronic reporting system.
    7. Some commenters felt that the language in 50 CFR 13 does not 
provide sufficient protection for falconry birds, and suggested that 
inspections be allowed only in the presence of the permittee. We added 
this language to these regulations.
    8. Some commenters suggested that we allow implanting of microchips 
in lieu of required bands. We added the use of International 
Standardization Organization- compliant microchips to these 
regulations.
    9. Many commenters asked for a provision allowing a falconry bird 
to feed on prey that the falconer did not intend to have the raptor 
hunt. We added a provision covering this issue to these regulations.
    10. Some commenters suggested that the question and answer format 
in the proposed rule did not work well, or that issues were addressed 
in more than one section of the rule. We changed the wording of these 
sections whenever we received suggested changes, reorganized the 
regulations to address the concerns about regulations in multiple 
sections, and changed from the question/answer format.
    11. We clarified language in this final rule about trapping raptors 
for falconry on public lands.
    12. We added language to this final rule stating that take of birds 
under a depredation order can include take by falconry birds, unless 
the Depredation Order specifies methods of take that do not include 
falconry.
    13. In a separate rule we have revised Sec.  21.21 to simplify the 
regulations governing import and export of migratory birds. The 
proposed changes to Sec.  21.21 are deleted from this rule.

IV. Comments on the Proposed Rule

    We received 967 comments from individuals and organizations, 
including 30 from States and 3 from other government entities, on the 
proposed rule published on February 9, 2005 (70 FR 6978-6992). We have 
reviewed the comments, and respond here to the most significant issues 
raised.
    Issue. Authority over captive-bred birds. A number of commenters 
asserted that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has no authority to 
regulate captive-bred raptors.
    Response. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not distinguish 
between wild and captive-bred birds. In addition, case law has 
established that the MBTA does govern activities involving captive-bred 
raptors.
    Issue. Elimination of the Federal falconry permit. This change was 
requested by the States through the Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies on behalf of the States, and would simply eliminate the 
Federal permit. All States that are expected to allow falconry have now 
implemented regulations governing the practice, and all have approved 
falconry regulations in place. The majority of those who commented on 
this issue agreed with the proposal to have falconry permits 
administered by the States.
     ``... this decision because of the shift from national to 
local standards has the potentially [sic] to significantly affect 
raptor populations at a local and national level and therefore requires 
an Environmental Impact Statement under the provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act.''
    Response. This assertion is incorrect. The take of raptors from the 
wild by each permittee each year for use in falconry is not altered; 
falconers are still limited to take of no more than two raptors from 
the wild each year. Thus, the change to falconry permitting 
administered by the States has no environmental impact. Further, in our 
assessment of the effects of take from the wild for falconry and raptor 
propagation (U.S.F.W.S. 2007), we found that the take of wild raptors 
for falconry is very unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect 
on wild raptor populations. All States must still maintain regulations 
at least as restrictive as the Federal regulations. The revised 
regulations require the States to be diligent in regulating falconry 
for the sport to continue to be allowed. Further, Federal authority for 
enforcement of most aspects of the falconry regulations is not 
diminished by the regulations change.
    Issue. Federal oversight.
     ``... federal oversight of permitting brings a different 
level of expertise and enforcement level to the sport of falconry. 
State fish and wildlife agencies do not necessarily have the staff, 
funding, expertise, or enforcement capabilities that FWS is able to 
provide. An effective permit program for falconry requires a strong 
federal presence and federal resources.''
     ``I strongly approve of eliminating the Federal permit OR 
changing it to a one time issued permit for life.''
     ``The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should transfer 
management of falconry programs to States that comply with federal 
falconry standards. We agree that, in the future, there should be no 
federal falconry permit. The mandates and obligations of the Service 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) require the Service to 
continue to regulate the sport of falconry. Therefore, the Service 
should work to correct all administrative issues that arise regarding 
States' compliance with the changes in the falconry regulations. It 
took 3 decades to develop the current system and no arbitrary change-
over period should be imposed that could potentially leave any State 
behind. Any State that modifies its regulations to be in compliance 
with the new federal falconry regulations should be allowed to operate 
immediately under the new regulations.'' (State comment)
     ``GADNR [Georgia Department of Natural Resources] supports 
the proposed change to the licensing procedures for falconry and the 
elimination of duplicative licensing. Once State regulations have been 
reviewed and addressed, we do not foresee any significant additional 
workload in managing these licensees.'' (State agency)
     We agree that the current dual permitting system should be 
revised to shift falconry permit administration to the individual 
States. This will relieve staff of all agencies of an extra 
administrative step in the permitting process.'' (State agency)
     ``The most substantive proposed change in the revised 
regulations is the elimination of the federal falconry permit once a 
State is certified to be in compliance with the federal regulations. 
The WDFW [Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife] has supported 
that action and the retention of a single State permit requirement.'' 
(State agency)
     ``The proposed revisions appear to not only reduce permit 
process duplicative efforts - as USFWS suggests -but to relax Federal 
oversight of migratory bird take - an oversight that has been valued 
for almost thirty years. CDOW [Colorado Division of Wildlife] 
recognizes the benefit that Federal guidelines and regulations bring to 
the management of migratory birds, and the

[[Page 59451]]

MBTA's role in governing all harvest in order to prevent over-
utilization. CDOW contends that relaxation of Federal oversight could 
result in undesired impacts to wildlife populations, due in part to an 
increased dependency on already insufficient State resources, and due 
additionally to the loss of a national perspective of the ecological 
and cultural values that guide management decisions. Like the USFWS, 
most States and tribes are continuing to ``do more with less.'' In 
addition, concern has been raised that loosening of Federal oversight 
suggests a retreat from the hard won progress made toward managing 
wildlife and habitats on an ecosystem or biome level. While the USFWS 
proposed revisions continue to allow that States and Tribes enact more 
restrictive regulations, in practice, States commonly revert to the 
federal regulatory scheme - publics sometimes demand it. Management of 
such a highly valued wildlife resource may best be undertaken in a 
strong partnership.'' (State agency)
     ``... federal oversight is necessary to ensure that 
regional impacts to raptor populations from the sport of falconry are 
identified and addressed in the permitting process. Only by tracking 
permits at the regional level can potential direct impacts to 
individual raptor species and raptor populations in general be 
adequately understood. It is critical that FWS track the number of 
permits issued and the number of each species taken in each region in 
order to prevent negative cumulative impacts as required under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.''
    Response. Only the Federal falconry permit is eliminated - not 
Federal oversight of falconry or Federal databases. These regulations 
will simply transfer all falconry permitting to the States. States that 
certify to the Director that their regulations are in compliance with 
these regulations will receive prompt consideration, and will be able 
to operate under these revised regulations. All falconers must comply 
with these regulations, though the State or tribal regulations may be 
more restrictive. The Service will still have law enforcement authority 
over most aspects of the practice of falconry, and will compile and 
evaluate information on all reported take of raptors from the wild for 
use in falconry. Inspections of falconry records, facilities, and birds 
will be the responsibility of the States, tribes, or territories. 
Because we will collect the same information we have collected in the 
past and will retain enforcement authority, except the authority for 
inspections, we do not believe that the changes in these regulations 
relax Federal oversight of falconry. Our 2007 NEPA analysis (U.S.F.W.S. 
2007) confirmed the minimal impact of falconry on wild raptor 
populations.
    We have implemented electronic reporting that will allow assessment 
of take of all raptor species taken from the wild for use in falconry. 
We will be able to assess take at the regional or State level. With 
this system, we will track the number of permits issued and the number 
of each species taken, and will evaluate the effects of take for 
falconry on raptor populations (see U.S.F.W.S. 2007). We expect that 
electronic reporting will facilitate summarizing and analyzing the 
effects of take of raptors for use in falconry.
    Issue. National permit system.
     ``...a national permitting system allows individuals who 
may have had their falconry permit [sic] revoked to be identified 
should they reapply. Moving to a state permitting system, creates the 
potential for an individual to move from State to State and reapplying 
without recognition of past problems in the event of a permit 
revocation.''
    Response. Each State, tribe, or territory will be able to access 
the national permittee database for information on an applicant from 
another State, so there is no new potential for problems such as the 
one suggested by the commenter. See Sec.  21.29 (l) below for 
information about data the States, tribes, or territories must keep.
    Issue. Federal standards.
     ``...a federal permitting program ensures that there will 
be a standard baseline level of care and expertise required before an 
individual is allowed to remove protected wild raptors from the wild 
for the sport of falconry. Going to a State permitting system creates 
the potential for disparities in the rigor and substance of permit 
requirements administered by individual states.''
    Response. All permittees must comply with the Federal facilities 
and care requirements. A State, tribe, or territory-only permitting 
system does not alter this requirement. States, tribes, and territories 
have implemented, and will be able to implement, more restrictive 
regulations (Sec.  21.29 (b)(1)(iii)).
    Issue. State workloads.
     ``No reduction in paperwork will occur. The State of Iowa 
will continue to require paperwork and reporting requirements for 
licensed falconers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed 
paperwork reduction appears to simply shift most, if not all, of the 
falconry program's administrative burden to participating State 
agencies.'' (State agency)
     ``This section [Unfunded Mandates Reform Act] states that 
``Though states may have to revise their falconry regulations to comply 
with the proposed revisions, nearly every State already has falconry 
regulations in place. Therefore, revisions of the State regulations 
should not be significant.'' If adopted these regulations will increase 
administrative enforcement burdens on State government.'' (State 
agency)
     ``The department is concerned about the cost of operating 
this program and the apparent unfunded mandate being placed on states 
by the federal government. We suggest the Service consider ways to 
cost-share part of the state's programs and develop a co-management 
rather than the proposed federal oversight approach.'' (State agency)
     ``The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 
significant portion of falconry permitting, record keeping and banding 
shift to State agencies. This change will significantly impact our 
department's administrative resources including staff hours, material, 
and equipment costs.'' (State agency)
     ``The proposal is of concern to Maine because it seeks to 
shift sole burden to the States... We recommend that the Service modify 
its current proposal to simply authorize the States to develop their 
own, individual regulations governing the practice of falconry without 
the requirement [and the burden and cost to the States] that they must 
operate under Federal requirements and Federal oversight.'' (State 
agency)
     ``Given that the relatively small number of falconers in 
the U.S. (~ 4,000) are spread across the entire country and their 
movements and transactions routinely criss-cross State and 
international boundaries, it would certainly seem most appropriate and 
most efficient for the FWS to continue to fulfill its responsibility to 
administer a nationwide system capable of permitting, tracking and 
overseeing use of raptors by falconers - especially in light of the 
fact that the value of individual birds renders falconry susceptible to 
black market endeavors.''
     ``For the FWS to abdicate its current national role and 
require states and tribes to absorb new responsibilities to develop and 
administer new permitting procedures, develop additional expertise with 
issues related to falconry, develop new database and tracking systems, 
administer falconry tests and assume responsibility to monitor falconer 
activities and enforce falconry regulations feels like a major unfunded

[[Page 59452]]

mandate to us. The proposed rules would entail new operational expenses 
and would also exacerbate our workload problem... Finally, should these 
proposed rules be approved, there would be considerable cost to states 
to set up systems that could be considered duplicative of the systems 
currently maintained by the FWS. Both monetary and manpower costs of 
such an undertaking and the inefficiencies associated with interfacing 
50+ individual falconry permitting/tracking systems come at a time when 
government budgets are being stretched to the limits. The proposed 
five-year time period intended to allow for an adequate transition time 
could be rendered moot by the lack of new funding to establish new 
State programs with internal as well as inter-jurisdictional 
capabilities.'' (State agency)
    Response. State concerns on this point are surprising, because the 
proposal to eliminate the Federal permit was presented to us by the 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies with support from every 
State. Though some States may have to change their regulations and 
their permitting procedures, there should be associated reductions in 
paperwork and coordination with our permits offices. We do not believe 
the regulation changes put a significant additional burden on the 
States. Therefore, we do not believe that this change is an unfunded 
mandate. One State agency went on to state, ``The department agrees 
that there will be a benefit to falconers and a reduction in paperwork 
resulting from this regulatory change.'' We also intend to have 
sufficient flexibility in the database to allow States to eliminate 
duplicate work.
    Issue. Transfer of falconry birds when a permittee moves to another 
State may be restricted.
     ``Currently, Montana law does not allow possession of 
raptors without a Montana falconry permit or appropriate federal 
permit. For individuals moving to Montana, a resident permit may not be 
obtained until residency is established. Currently, birds may be kept 
under the existing federal permit until residency is established. 
Although interim licensing could be accomplished through recognition of 
permits issued by other jurisdictions, the absence of oversight 
currently provided by the FWS would reduce the level of confidence that 
one jurisdiction would have in permits issued by another.'' (State 
agency)
    Response. We agree that this is an issue each State must resolve. 
Each State, tribe, or territory must decide how to handle birds 
possessed by a falconer who moves into a new falconry jurisdiction. The 
database will help falconry permitting authorities to check and honor 
another State's, tribe's, or territory's permits. Further, all States, 
tribes, or territories must meet the standards in these regulations.
    Issue. Review of State permitting.
     ``Under the current falconry permitting process, all that 
is required for a state to have the authority to allow the use of 
raptors for falconry purposes is; 1) the Secretary's approval of the 
state permitting system, and 2) the addition of the state to the list. 
There are no penalties to non-compliance to the Federal Regulations, 
and to our knowledge, no state has had their [sic] authorities [sic] 
revoked. The states are the competent authority when it comes to all 
hunting sports, including falconry. This entire section of punitive 
measures against the states for non-compliance should be deleted.'' 
(State agency)
     ``We recommend that the regulations simply state that the 
Service and the states will work to correct all administrative issues 
as they arise and do not include program revocation. Given the positive 
performance record of the states in administering the joint falconry 
program for over 30 years and the state's effective handling of complex 
migratory bird issues such as waterfowl hunting, it is difficult to 
imagine a complicated falconry problem that would require the Service 
to ``suspend'' a state's falconry program certification.'' (State 
agency)
     ``Significant effort was spent to spell out the concise 
steps necessary for the Service to regulate the performance of the 
individual states' falconry programs, including revocation procedures. 
We believe that most of the Services's regulatory processes are 
unnecessary and could be simplified by stating that the Service and 
states will work cooperatively to address specific administrative 
issues.'' (State agency)
    Response. We do not expect this to be an issue. Falconry and 
falconry permitting have not been significant resource issues for the 
Service. We will work with the States to correct issues that arise. 
Under the current regulations a failure by a permittee to comply with 
the regulations or permit conditions can result in loss of his or her 
Federal falconry permit, and loss of the privilege of practicing 
falconry. Without some assurance that permitting jurisdictions are 
maintaining the falconry standards, the Service may be viewed as 
failing to fulfill its obligations under the MBTA.Issue. Suspension of 
a State's, tribe's, or territory's certification. ``Please consider 
having the Service take over the falconry program in a State that fails 
to meet the certification requirements. Releasing, transferring, or 
euthanizing falconry birds because a State fails some aspect of the 
Service's certification program seems overly harsh on the affected 
falconers. It is unrealistic to think that these actions would proceed 
under those circumstances.'' (State agency)
    Response. The elimination of the Federal permit was considered at 
the request of the States. We cannot afford to support permitting 
positions just for States that fail in their permitting programs. This 
provision remains in place in these regulations (Sec.  21.29 (b)(12)).
    Issue. Federal authority under revised regulations.
     ``The proposed rule offers little clarification on how 
enforcement might operate in the future. With additional regulatory and 
permitting burdens being placed on the states, we assume that there is 
a potential for federal law enforcement to diminish. Even if the state-
federal law enforcement of migratory bird regulations is envisioned to 
remain the same, the rule should state this in clear language.'' (State 
agency)
     ``Does the FWS retain the authority to suspend or revoke 
falconry permits under 50 CFR. If not, this should be stated. Exactly 
what authority does the Service (LE) retain under the proposed 
regulations, i.e. with no Federal permit. This should be clarified and 
stated in the regulations.''
    Response. We do not believe that the regulation change affects law 
enforcement substantially, or that there are additional regulatory or 
permitting burdens placed on the States, tribes, or territories. With 
one exception, Service enforcement of the provisions of the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle 
Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d) are not affected by the regulations change. 
The exception is that, because the Service will no longer issue 
falconry permits, Service law enforcement officers will not have the 
authority to conduct inspections of falconers' records and facilities, 
unless the Service officers also are delegated State law enforcement 
authority. The Service will not have authority to suspend or revoke 
permits issued by the States, tribes, or territories, but compliance 
with all provisions of these regulations remains under the purview of 
the Service, and falconry permittees are subject to Federal prosecution 
for failure to comply with the regulations.Issue. ``When capturing a 
golden eagle for falconry purposes the USFWS draft regulation indicates 
that the landowner,

[[Page 59453]]

which would include a land management agency (BLM, USFS, BR, State Land 
Departments, etc.), must authorize the activity. Neither the States nor 
the Service should be authorizing land managers to regulate wildlife. 
They do not currently have that statutory authority. Please delete this 
line item in its entirety.'' (State agency)
    Response. We simply intended to make it clear that these 
regulations do not authorize capture of a golden eagle for falconry if 
the capture is not allowed by the agency or if entry to private land is 
not allowed by the landowner. However, this does not mean that a land 
management agency must take special measures or otherwise authorize 
take of a golden eagle if the agency's regulations or other language 
already allow the take. In the interest of clarity, we changed the 
relevant language, which is now in Sec.  21.29 (f)(16).
    Issue. Moving birds between falconry and breeding projects.
     ``Movement of wild-caught raptors between falconry and 
propagation permits is a troublesome arena for the department. With the 
high desire to obtain wild Peregrine Falcons and Gyrfalcons in Alaska, 
this has proved to be a challenge to track. Temporarily allowing the 
movement of a bird from a falconry permit to a breeding program will 
negate a desire to keep these programs separated rather than 
intertwined. This problem is further confused by the proposed 
regulatory language that states - ``Regardless of the number of State 
or tribal permits that you have, you may possess no more than five 
raptors.'' Taking [changes] 15, 16, and the limit on five raptors in 
total, we find the intent of the Service to be unclear and confusing.'' 
(State agency)
     ``It should be permissible to use falconry raptors for 
propagation for less than 6 months out of the year, if a falconer has a 
raptor propagation permit.'' (State agency)
    Response. We changed the relevant language where it occurred to 
make it clear that we mean regardless of how many State, tribal, or 
territorial falconry permits one may possess, he or she may have no 
more than one raptor if an Apprentice Falconer and 3 raptors if a 
General Falconer. A Master Falconer will be allowed to possess 5 wild 
birds (3 eagles). We appreciate the States' concern about separation of 
falconry and propagation programs. However, allowing the use of birds 
already held for falconry in propagation in the off season will not 
mean that permittees who hold birds are exempt from either 
documentation of the birds or from inspections.
    Issue. 180-day trapping period.
     ``It is unclear what the impacts would be of changing the 
180-day-per-year limit on removing raptors from the wild to allowing 
states to set their own removal limits. This should be more clearly 
explained and analyzed.''
     ``We disagree with the removal of the 180-day season for 
trapping, as it would increase disturbance to nesting raptors. We also 
disagree with the removal of the restriction for the number of raptors 
a falconer may have during a one-year period sequentially. By removing 
this regulation, a falconer could harvest an unlimited number of 
raptors. This seems especially inappropriate for Apprentices.'' (State 
agency)
     ``We support removing the 180-day per year limit on take 
from the wild and agree that states will appropriately select their own 
trapping seasons.'' (State agency)
     ``The 180-day take period, during which raptors can be 
trapped or acquired for falconry, should be eliminated.'' (State 
agency)
     ``Colorado is not supportive of the potential year-round 
capture of raptors that could be permissible under this change. Take 
should be prohibited during biologically sensitive periods such as 
during courtship, incubation, etc.'' (State agency)
    Response. We do not believe that removing the 180-day-per-year 
restriction on take will have any measurable effect on take of raptors 
from the wild. We did not change the 2-birds-per-year allowed take from 
the wild by removal of the 180-day take period, and removing the 180-
day language from the regulation will allow each State to better 
regulate take as appropriate for the species found in the State and the 
times at which they are found there.
    We do not understand the assertion that ``a falconer could harvest 
an unlimited number of raptors.'' The rule allows a falconer to take no 
more than 2 raptors from the wild per year, as a falconer can now. 
Further, we do not believe that removing the 180-day take restriction 
will lead to increased disturbance of nesting raptors. The States have 
regulated take effectively within the 180-day restriction in place, and 
can continue to do so if the restriction is removed. Removing the 
restriction will allow a State, tribe, or territory to better regulate 
take of the species found there.
    Issue. Facilities and care of falconry raptors. ``The modified 
requirements for facilities and care of raptors held under a State 
issues [sic] falconry permit are insufficient. The level of detail 
regarding equipment and housing contained in the existing regulations 
was not confusing and did not need to be ``simplified.'' They simply 
ensured that falconers would have the minimum housing and equipment 
required to adequately provide for raptors in their care. These 
provisions should not be altered. The proposed changes are if anything 
more confusing for their lack of specificity.''
    Response. There were very few comments on this issue. We appreciate 
the concern for raptors held by falconers, but we believe that the 
revised regulations provide sufficient guidance for falconry 
permittees.
    Issue. Age to become an Apprentice Falconer. Comments on the 
proposed reduction from age 14 to age 12 to become an Apprentice 
Falconer were about evenly divided. Some people suggested that there 
should be no lower age limit; others suggested that the age to become 
an Apprentice should be raised.
     ``The proper maintenance of a raptor in hunting trim is a 
challenge to the capabilities of many adults. I don't believe that most 
12 year olds wanting to practice the sport (or even 14 year olds for 
that matter) possess the maturity, judgment, or refined sense of 
responsibility necessary to do justice to the raptor. And they also 
lack basic capacity (i.e. ability to drive) for transport of their 
feathered charges from residence to hunting area, or to medical 
attention.''
     ``If the age for apprentice falconry was lowered to 12, a 
great and positive experience with wildlife could begin.''
     ``The age of young falconers should be lowered to 12 
years. Lots of young lives can be steered toward conservation 
practices, respect for the habitat, and the concept of training a bird 
through positive rewards. What an idea for life in general!''
     ``My personal feeling is that if you are not old enough to 
drive how can you practice falconry?''
     ``I support lowering the minimum age for Apprentices to 12 
years of age, and the provision to allow Apprentices to use Harris 
Hawks.''
     ``Those who argue that few 12-year-olds are mature enough 
to succeed at falconry are correct; however, they miss the point that 
established falconers will be under no obligation to sponsor 12-year-
old applicants. The proposed change will be beneficial for those few 
youngsters (including children of falconers) who are sufficiently 
motivated and have the active support of a sponsor close by.''
     ``12 years of age is too young, and the current minimum 
age of 14 should remain in effect.'' (State agency)

[[Page 59454]]

     ``We do not support lowering the age of apprentice 
falconers to 12 as suggested in 21.29 (b)(3)(i)(A). We are concerned 
that a child at the age of 12 or 13 is not adequately equipped to pass 
the examination and to properly care for a raptor. Thus, the minimum 
age should remain as is. We are also concerned that a child this young 
may be less focused and therefore unable to properly train their bird 
or provide significant hunting opportunities for their bird. This is 
particularly troublesome if the requirements of an apprentice are 
changed to allow for possession of Harris's hawks and captive-bred 
raptors.'' (State agency)
     ``The GADNR disagrees with the proposal to reduce the 
qualifying age for apprentice falconry to 12 years. Generally we agree 
that some persons may be able to handle and care for a bird at age 12 
but would suggest that a far greater percentage of 12 year-olds would 
lack both the mental focus and physical strength to properly hold and 
care for a bird.'' (State agency)
     ``Our department's professional staff feel lowering the 
age to 12 would negatively impact the program. Most 12-year-old boys or 
girls have not developed the necessary respect and responsibility to 
trap a wild raptor and maintain the bird in a healthy environment. A 
person of this young age can become easily discouraged and frustrated 
with the challenges of feeding, flying and training a passage raptor. 
Unfortunately, falconry sponsors are often located miles away from 
their nondriving young apprentice and the lack of one-on-one training/
mentoring can spell failure for many young falconers. Ultimately, our 
primary concern should be the welfare of the wild (raptor) resource.''
    Response. We found merit in both arguments, but changing the 
minimum age to 12 (as in the proposed rule) leaves the decision for a 
younger person with his or her parents and with the sponsor, which we 
believe is appropriate. Further, any State, tribe, or territory may 
choose to limit apprenticeship to older individuals. This rule sets the 
minimum age to practice falconry at 12 years (Sec.  21.29 
(c)(3)(i)(A)).
    Issue. If you are under 18 years of age, a parent or legal guardian 
must sign your application and is legally responsible for your 
activities.
     ``We do support the addition of parental signatures and 
responsibility for individuals less than 18 years of age as suggested 
in 21.29 (b)(3)(i)(B).'' (State agency)
     ``We disagree with the requirement for a parent or 
guardian to co-sign the application of the falconer under 18 years of 
age. We should not dictate the parent/child relationship or attempt to 
set federal standards for the state's responsibilities (relating to 
liability claims).'' (State agency)
     ``Remove this section from the proposal. State authorities 
can handle legal issues locally.'' (State agency)
     ``We agree that a parent or legal guardian of a minor 
falconer should be required to document responsibility through 
affidavit.'' (State agency)
    Response. Permits language in 50 CFR 13.50 states that ``Except as 
otherwise limited in the case of permits described in Sec.  13.25(d), 
any person holding a permit under this subchapter B assumes all 
liability and responsibility for the conduct of any activity conducted 
under the authority of such permit.'' We believe that it is reasonable 
to make adults responsible for a minor aware that they could face legal 
liabilities associated with falconry. This requirement is left in the 
regulations.
    Issue. Possession of Harris's hawks by Apprentice Falconers. Some 
commenters opposed allowing Apprentice Falconers to possess Harris's 
hawks.
     ``The temperment [sic] of Harris Hawks makes them well-
suited for learning falconry; in fact, one complaint I have 
occasionally encountered in discussion of this provision is that Harris 
hawks are too easy, so easy that they will spoil Apprentices for other 
species of raptors. Since when does it make sense to prevent beginners 
to a sport - any sport - from trying something because it was ``too 
easy''? I have seen other, more valid objections, such as Apprentices 
possibly releasing Harris Hawks in areas well north of their natural 
range; I feel this is adequately addressed in the existing language 
detailing release of species in areas the species is not normally 
found.''
     ``Although advocacy groups have no problem with this 
privilege, TPWD [Texas Parks and Wildlife Department] feels it is the 
best interest of the resource to disallow possession of wild-caught 
Harris's hawks by the Apprentice Falconer. Their populations are not 
considered to be imperiled in Texas but Harris's hawks are prone to 
feather plucking and other psychoses if improperly cared for. 
Additionally, it is felt that the gentle demeanor (e.g. ease of taming, 
or ``manning down'') of this species compared to other apprentice 
raptors, such as red-tailed hawks, limits the apprentice's broader 
learning environment and training.'' (State agency)
     ``WDFW supports apprentices being allowed to possess 
Harris hawks, but only as passage birds.'' (State agency)
    Response. We believe that this question is most appropriately 
addressed by the sponsor and the permitting agency. States in which 
Harris's hawks occur adequately regulate take from the wild, so 
allowing Apprentices to have Harris's hawks should not affect wild 
populations.
    Issue. Need for a facilities inspection before one can obtain a 
falconry permit. We proposed allowing an experienced falconer who no 
longer has a facility to have a permit in order to sponsor Apprentice 
Falconers, while requiring a facilities inspection for an individual to 
house a raptor or raptors for falconry. Many commenters opposed 
allowing a person to get a permit without approved falconry facilities. 
Some individuals argued that facilities for housing a raptor or raptors 
must be a prerequisite for obtaining a falconry permit. Others agreed 
with the proposal.
     ``The department is concerned that new falconers will not 
need to have an approved facility in order to obtain a permit. 
Constructing an appropriate facility should be a prerequisite for a new 
falconer prior to obtaining a permit. Your proposed regulation 
indicates that this facility requirement may pose a problem because a 
senior, experienced falconer who no longer has a facility or birds 
should be able to possess a permit so he/she can sponsor a new 
falconer. It seems that you are mixing two different issues through 
this apparent simplification. We suggest that an experienced falconer 
could maintain a permit with no birds and no facility, but an 
apprentice must have an approved facility to obtain a permit.'' (State 
agency)
     ``We do not support allowing permits to be issued to 
individuals who do not have housing facilities. Issuing a permit to an 
individual without a housing facility puts an additional enforcement 
burden on the state. If a permit were issued with the understanding 
that the individual did not have housing and would therefore not have a 
bird in their possession then in theory there would be no reason to 
conduct an inspection or follow up visits. Consequently, these 
individuals would be in the best position to illegally obtain and house 
a bird in an inappropriate manner.''
     ``It is admirable for the Service to simplify falconry and 
equipment requirements. However, no person should be issued a falconry 
permit without first demonstrating that they possess proper 
facilities.'' (State agency)
     ``We currently require inspection of a facility prior to 
the issuance of a State falconry license and we would want to keep it 
that way. Issuing a license prior

[[Page 59455]]

to an inspection could be very problematic for new license holders - an 
apprentice or someone who has moved. The State should be allowed to 
require the inspection prior to the issuance of the permit. (State 
agency)
    Response. We accede to State concerns on this issue. This final 
rule requires that a new falconer have his or her facilities inspected 
before he or she may be granted an Apprentice permit (Sec.  21.29 
(d)(1)(ii)). However, an individual who can no longer fly raptors on 
his or her own and does not wish to obtain a falconry raptor should be 
able to get a permit without a facilities inspection. Every permittee 
must have his or her facilities inspected before he or she may get a 
bird, but only Apprentices will have to have their facilities inspected 
to get a permit.
    Issue. Facilities inspections and commercial trade.
     ``Some people without facilities who apply for a permit 
may be involved in the commercial trade of raptors. Allowing 
individuals without facilities to become licensed falconers would 
potentially add to the illegal trade in raptors.''
    Response. We disagree. If an individual's facilities have not been 
inspected, then he or she is in violation of the regulations if he or 
she possesses a raptor.
    Issue. Experience requirement to advance to General Falconer. Many 
commenters suggested that the proposed change in the regulations that 
would require more experience to advance to General Falconer was not 
warranted.
    Response. We accept the prevailing comments on this point, and this 
final rule is changed accordingly. To advance to General Falconer, an 
individual must be at least 16 years old with 2 years of experience as 
an Apprentice Falconer (Sec.  21.29 (c)(3)(ii)). This final rule lowers 
the minimum age to be a General Falconer from 18 to 16.
    Issue. Increase in the possession limit for Master Falconers. We 
proposed to increase the possession limit for Master Falconers from 3 
raptors to 5, though only 3 of them could come from the wild. Opinion 
was about evenly divided on this proposed change. Many commenters 
believed that no Master Falconer could capably handle more than 3 
raptors. Others argued that this change is welcome because some people 
have sufficient time to care for, and hunt with, more than 3 raptors. 
Some individuals argued that there should be no possession limit.
     ``I support the increase to 3 for generals and 5 for 
Master level falconers. The use of Harris Hawks in falconry makes this 
change especially useful, as unlike any other species of hawk, the 
Harris can be used in multiple numbers like a dog pack. This is the 
Harris's natural style of hunting, and should be preserved in the 
practice of falconry. Likewise, someone with an infinite amount of 
time, game fields and money should be able to fly as many of the other 
species of raptors as can be biologically allowed. I do not support the 
restriction of the number of wild-caught birds allowed on a general or 
Master Falconer's permit unless it is biologically supported.''
     ``CDOW opposes this proposed regulation. The subjective 
nature of this regulation states, ``Many individuals have sufficient 
time available to care for and train five raptors for use in 
falconry''. However, recent law enforcement action by CDOW indicates 
that many falconers, in fact, do not properly exercise the one or two 
raptors they currently possess. Based on this observation, the Division 
opposes possession of five raptors by any one falconer.'' (State 
agency)
     ``In relation to 21.29 (b)(3)(iii)(c), we do not see the 
need to allow Master Falconers to possess more birds. However, we are 
not opposed to this change so long as the falconer can properly 
maintain the bird and the housing facility is adequate, and they are 
required to use all birds for hunting purposes or to show reason why a 
bird is not being hunted.'' (State agency)
     ``There is no reason to increase the possession limit to 5 
raptors.'' (State agency)
     ``Our department's professional staff feel the increased 
possession from three to five falconry birds is unrealistic, and may 
compromise the birds health and well-being with inadequate attention.'' 
(State agency)
     ``Master Falconers should be held to possessing only three 
(3) raptors under permit. The public could perceive that we are 
unreasonably relaxing our protection of these species.'' (State agency)
     ``We strongly support maintaining the current three (3)-
bird limit for falconry rather than increasing it to a five (5)-bird 
limit. We disagree with the comment under ``Changes in Regulations 
Governing Falconry'' 5 that states ``many individuals have 
sufficient time available to care for and train 5 raptors for use in 
falconry.'' It is extremely time consuming to care for, train, 
exercise, and hunt three raptors in one person's possession. Increasing 
the possession limit may result in individuals acquiring additional 
raptors for collection and novelty purposes, resulting in decreased 
care and attention to all raptors in that person's possession. An 
increase in the possession limit could also facilitate illegal transfer 
of raptors and encourage violations of the possession limit of birds 
taken from the wild.'' (State agency)
    Response. Take from the wild and protection of the raptor 
populations are not significantly altered by this change. We find it 
implausible that individuals who cannot care for more raptors than 
allowed under the current regulations will get additional raptors just 
because they can do so. The regulations require that any bird held for 
falconry be well cared for and kept in good facilities. We do not 
believe that this possession limit change will do any more to 
facilitate illegal activities than does the current possession limit. 
This change is left in place in these regulations.
    Issue. Increase in the possession limit for General Falconers. Some 
commenters requested that we increase the possession limit for General 
Falconers.
    Response. Increasing the possession limit for General Falconers 
does not increase the allowed take from the wild, nor does it affect 
wild populations. We increased the possession limit for General 
Falconers from two to three raptors.
    Issue. Possession limit and take from the wild.
     ``Another major concern CDOW recognizes with this proposed 
regulation is that the statement ``Allowing the possession of five 
raptors does not change the allowed take from the wild or the current 
limit on possession of birds taken from the wild'' is misleading. 
Proposed Service Regulation 21.29 (d)(2)[ 6987, I] states, ``A falconry 
bird is considered to be taken from the wild only by the person who 
originally captures it; the bird is not considered to be taken from the 
wild by any subsequent permittee to whom it is legally transferred.'' 
This proposed regulation will allow a falconer to legally possess five 
wild birds, as long as the falconer is a secondary, or subsequent 
recipient of two of the wild-caught birds. CDOW contends that a wild-
caught bird be determined as any bird caught in the wild, regardless of 
legal transfer of ownership. Using the numbers that the FWS provides in 
this document, this proposed Service Regulation increased by 2 the 
number of raptors that each falconer could take from the wild, 
resulting in a net take of as many as 8,000 raptors. This issue of 
transfer and possession of birds ``considered to be taken from the 
wild'' must be clarified by the FWS. If the ``wild bird not being a 
wild bird'' if transferred applies to both the take and

[[Page 59456]]

possession restrictions, as applied to the subsequent licensee, then we 
believe it will lead to additional take problems as we have outlined 
above. If it applies to the take restriction only, then it may not have 
as severe an impact. Regardless of the interpretation, the CDOW 
believes the transferred ``wild'' bird must still count against the 3 
wild bird possession limit as applied to the subsequent licensee.''
    Response. The current regulations allow take of two raptors from 
the wild each year by each permittee, as do these regulations. They 
state that a bird taken from the wild is always considered a wild bird, 
so such a bird would count against the number of wild birds that a 
falconer can possess. The new regulations do not change the level of 
take that a falconer is allowed each year, but we recognize that, for a 
few years, they might lead to a slightly increased total of raptors 
taken from the wild.Issue. ``The state's coordination with the USFWS 
will increase as the regulations call for monthly transfer of state's 
falconry data.'' (State agency)
    Response. We disagree. These regulations require only that States 
submit information on new or changed falconry permits - the same 
information they have exchanged with our regional permits offices. We 
believe that providing updates on falconer information will require 
less work than do the current exchanges with our regional migratory 
bird permit offices.Issue. ``Coordination regarding out-of-State 
falconers will become more complex as, instead of 7 Regional USFWS 
offices, there will be an unknown number of state/tribal licensing/
administrative jurisdictions.'' (State agency)
    Response. We disagree. The electronic permits system will be 
accessible by every entity that issues falconry permits. We believe 
that checking the credentials of out-of-State falconers will be easier.
    Issue. Temporary care of falconry raptors by other individuals. 
Many commenters suggested that we should allow individuals other than 
the permittee or another falconer to care for falconry raptors 
temporarily. Doing so would allow family members to care for falconry 
raptors while the falconer is traveling, for example.
    Response. We agree with the prevailing comments on this point, and 
added this provision to the final regulations at Sec.  21.29 (d)(7).
    Issue. More time to submit 3-186A reports. Some commenters 
suggested that more time be allowed for submitting 3-186A forms 
reporting take from the wild. They noted that because falconers often 
must travel to capture a bird for falconry, the 5-day reporting 
requirement might not be practical, particularly in light of the 
requirement to report electronically.
    Response. We understand this concern. This final rule changes the 
reporting time to 10 days. However, this change does not mean that one 
can, for example, capture a raptor from the wild, keep it for 9 days, 
release it on the tenth day, and never report acquisition of the bird. 
A falconer must report acqu