A local owner of a trout hatchery and his employee were arrested this week for killing over 250 Great Blue Heron, 10 Osprey and one Bald Eagle. Their reason was to protect their fish from predators.
Within 5 miles from them is a state run hatchery that has solved the same problem using bird netting.
I can’t believe that they would do something this outrageous. Well I can believe it because the carcases were found on their property, but you know what I mean.
I am truely outraged at this. They are subject to 125 years in jail and 3 million in fines. While they cannot pay this I sure hope they receive a punishment that is appropriate. I think we might have bought our fish for the local fishing derby from them. If so, I will push to see that we get them elsewhere next year.
That’s a LOT of birds to kill. Wonder how it was done and over what period of time?
Aren’t those Federal offenses? While I find the offenses disgusting, their defense is somewhat understandable. I believe here in NY, a landowner/farmer is allowed to protect his crop or farmed animals from predators. Recently, a farmer was charged with shooting and killing a stray dog that was threatening his chickens(I believe) on his property. He was found to be within his rights of protecting his property. This is not to say I would have done the same thing. Why should it be different if an ‘endangered species’ is attacking? I don’t have an answer.
Anyway, if found guilty, the punishment of jail and the fines, should be reasonable. As offensive as their actions were, these guys did not hurt anyone. Guys who swindle thousands of people out of their entire savings and pensions (ENRON) didn’t or won’t get as severe penalties as these may get.
Allan
[This message has been edited by tyeflies (edited 15 May 2006).]
"Federal authorities have charged two area men with killing hundreds of blue herons, a bald eagle and other protected migratory birds at a commercial trout hatchery in Sunderland.
Bird experts say that, given the hundreds of carcasses found at the fish hatchery, serious damage may have been done to the population of migratory fish-eating birds in the western part of the state.
Arrested Thursday were hatchery owner Michael Zak Jr., 58, of 467 Amherst Road in Sunderland, and Timothy Lloyd, 29, of 115 Park St., Easthampton.
The pair have been charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It was unclear Friday night whether the men were still in custody.
The criminal complaint alleges that federal agents found ?more than 250 great blue heron carcasses,? as well as the bodies of about 10 ospreys and one bald eagle on the grounds of the Mohawk Trout Hatchery, a business owned by Zak and which lies behind his home.
?Ospreys, herons and eagles are all natural predators of fish, so I think you can probably figure out for yourself their motive,? said Christina DiIorio-Sterling of the U.S. Department of Justice. Federal officials said there was no protective netting at Zak?s hatchery to ward off birds.
State fish hatcheries located in Franklin County use netting to protect their fish from predatory birds.
The woman who answered a call made to the commercial fish hatchery Friday said that Zak was not there and then hastily hung up the telephone when asked about the case. Calls to the hatchery were not answered."
Thanks. I guess the owners should and could have made a reasonable effort, meaning placing netting above the hatchery, to keep the trout safe. Instead they used excessive violence.
While I agree that their actions, if found guilty, are dispicable, they will probably get a greater punishment than people guilty of destroying other peoples lives as in the example in above post.
Allan, how is their defense understandable? They displayed complete disregard for the law to protect their property. Evidently the owner was too cheap to protect his “property” with netting. And apparently his fish were not in immediate danger when he killed some of the birds, since he was observed using a scoped rifle. Furthermore, why was he saving the carcasses? Maybe he was motivated by something more than just defending his fish.
Is it really possible for a state law to override a federal law?
I realize these two bozos may not be able to pay such a fine, if convicted, and the imprisonment does seem excessive (not like they would really receive it). But their punishment needn’t be reasonable, as their actions were not reasonable and neither is their defense.
Are they Native Americans and the feathers are exempt? Is there a law demanding netting? Can they ‘defend’ their property? By any means? We are a nation of laws. The laws may be wrong, but, what are the laws on this? Who knows, they may be innocent of any crime.
I am sorry but there are 2 sides to every story.
I have an interest in a private fly fishing club here in Ontario. It costs us big bucks to keep the ponds stocked. We do not raise our own fish. Our water is all catch and release but we have to replace fish due to natural mortality, fish that do not survive the most careful live release and mostly fish killed by herons and ospreys.
We do not mind the herons and ospreys taking fish; it’s the fish they leave behind that really hurt.
You see, the bigger fish cruise the shoreline where the herons hang out and all fish come close enough to the surface to fall prey to the raptors. Walking the ponds in the morning and finding big fish laying there dead makes me see red. Remember I said LOTS of money.
The ospreys and the herons are constantly grabbing or speering fish far too big for them to be lifted from the water. Consequently, the birds drop the fish in favour of another, hopefully smaller meal.
We applied for and obtained a “Scare permit” that allowed us to scare the birds away with a loud screaming shot fron a special gun. These cost money too. After 2 years of this, the birds got used to the noise and didn’t spook when we shot the noise makers.
At this point we applied for a “kill permit”. We were refused the first year but were given a permit in the year following.
We do not kill birds daily. We just don’t have the manpower to be policeing the ponds every day and, of course, if there are clients around we can not shoot. But we do shoot.
The ponds are far too big to consider netting. To low and it would affect the casting. Too high and the birds would fly under it. What can we do?
If somebody could suggest a viable alternative, we would gladly give up having to shoot the birds.
I don’t know if it would work on raptors but many of our local berry farmers have discouraged birds by tying long strips of mylar to the bushes. Perhaps doing this to the perching areas over the pond would work. I do think that they would eventually adopt and ignore it but by then the screamer gun might work again for a while. One local grower of landscape shrubs was able to stop killing deer some years ago by rotating several methods of non-lethal tactics to keep the herd from becoming accustomed to any one of them.
all leaders tangle; mine are just better at it than most. Jim
Very good point, but picture this: the area around our ponds is cut back far enough so as not to interfere with the backcasts of the fishermen. Behind that is old forest with very tall trees some of which are long dead but still standing and offering perfect perches to the ospreys. Hanging strips of anything would have to be so far back as to be ineffective. We do that in the nearby gardens to discourage the birds.
Keep in mind that my partners and I are all animal lovers and staunch conservationists. We would not deliberately harm anything unless we thought we had no choice.
Thanks for your thoughts.
“how is their defense understandable?”
First, understandable does not mean agreement with what was done or that it was within the law. It is what it is.
“They displayed complete disregard for the law to protect their property.”
That has yet to be proven.
“Evidently the owner was too cheap to protect his “property” with netting.”
That seems correct but that may have been too expensive for the owner and was that the only alternative?
“And apparently his fish were not in immediate danger when he killed some of the birds, since he was observed using a scoped rifle.”
How do you know that and where was the use of a scoped rifle reported?
“Furthermore, why was he saving the carcasses? Maybe he was motivated by something more than just defending his fish.”
Burial dumpsite perhaps? I didn’t read that he was ‘saving’ the carcasses.
“Is it really possible for a state law to override a federal law?”
As I recall, your state tried to do it with legalizing marijuana.
“I realize these two bozos may not be able to pay such a fine, if convicted, and the imprisonment does seem excessive (not like they would really receive it). But their punishment needn’t be reasonable, as their actions were not reasonable and neither is their defense.”
So, I guess you favor unreasonable fines and imprisonments for crimes?
Allan
[This message has been edited by tyeflies (edited 15 May 2006).]
All good points, Allan.
As for the scoped rifle, we use a shotgun. However, my rifle does have a scope and if I used a rifle I would need a scope. To hit even a big bird at over 100 yards would require one, at least for me.
Diane, as I have said, there is at least 1 good reason to kill birds like that.
Some might say that killing birds to protect ones property is criminal. Those same people might say that using a gun to protect your house and possessions against human intruders is OK. Don’t shoot the birds but go ahead and shoot the people. I don’t know but I think human life would be worth a little more.
Sorry, but I was only asking how you felt their defense was understandable. But thanks for the definition! Now please allow me to clarify.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>“They displayed complete disregard for the law to protect their property.”
That has yet to be proven.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Their actions were reported as witnessed by authorities.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>“Evidently the owner was too cheap to protect his “property” with netting.”
That seems correct but that may have been too expensive for the owner and was that the only alternative?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It would seem netting to be the most affordable, effective, and legal means to protect the trout ponds. The netting I have seen at hatcheries didn’t appear to have cost a fortune.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>“Furthermore, why was he saving the carcasses? Maybe he was motivated by something more than just defending his fish.”
Burial dumpsite perhaps? I didn’t read that he was ‘saving’ the carcasses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
See above site and reread Jed’s posts.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>“Is it really possible for a state law to override a federal law?”
As I recall, your state tried to do it with legalizing marijuana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And was my state successful? Your response was not an answer.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>“I realize these two bozos may not be able to pay such a fine, if convicted, and the imprisonment does seem excessive (not like they would really receive it). But their punishment needn’t be reasonable, as their actions were not reasonable and neither is their defense.”
So, I guess you favor unreasonable fines and imprisonments for crimes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, I do not, and I do not know how you incorrectly managed to infer that. Punishment/fines should be fair and just. Punishment would be “unreasonable” if it was simply a minor inconvenience.
Many good questions and responses. Thank you for your concern one and all.
JC, They are not Native Americans. There are no laws requiring netting, but there are laws prohibiting the killing of these birds. The birds are protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. There may be remedies provided under the law (I don’t know) but they obviously did not choose to find one of those remedies to resolve the issue they had.
Bob Williams, you do have a choice. One choice is to not have a private fishing club that has such a high concentration of fish that it attracts an abnormal amount of birds, or pay more to keep up your inventory of fish and allow for predation that goes on. There are always choices that we make in situations like this, and you have made one of those choices. Please don’t hear this comment as a criticism of the existance of your club or the choices you have made. My point is that there are always choices and one should never be complacent about them. My choice would be to avoid private clubs, in spite of the greater possibility of catching more/larger fish and to enjoy nature as it is. Your choice is different, but both of us are making choices.
Alan,
I think their situation is difficult, but their solution is not acceptable. I understand the need to protect your crop from predators but it must be done within the law.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR> After 2 years of this, the birds got used to the noise and didn’t spook when we shot the noise makers.
At this point we applied for a “kill permit”. We were refused the first year but were given a permit in the year following. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That’s preposterous.
but picture this: the area around our ponds is cut back far enough so as not to interfere with the backcasts of the fishermen.
LOL, like a golf course for fishing.
I for one am outraged that migratory birds are treated so unfairly by Canadians. Those birds can and do fly south where they are enjoyed by Americans. It brings great sadness to this nation that you would murder migratory birds for such selfish reasons. If fish can’t reproduce in your large aquarium and they are unable to hide from raptors I think you should consider fish loss a cost of doing business.
I think Benjo summed my own thoughts up very well in fish golfing operations and net losses they suffer to wild birds doing what they have done for many millennia to survive… Just some thoughts…
Aren’t Heron feathers illegal to own/possess for fly tying???..seems these guys should have know this and strung the killing of such birds together accordingly…as being also a NO NO.