I have a lsomewhat large vineyard here in S.E. Michigan. About 2 hours ago I shot a woodcuck who was eating the young growth on some of the vines. I don’t care to shoot at just anything that moves but if it moves towards the vines and starts eating them…it is my way of stopping them. I have red fox that eat the rabbits, they can live freely on my land, the coyotes eat the rabbits but they also (in packs) attack my sheep and horses (I have witnessed it) they get shoot if I have a chance. No problems with birds of prey in my pond, I put goldfish in it 4 years ago and now I have thousands…let the birds have their day. My 2 cents, Jonezee
Hope you put the chucks hide to good use!! 
Peter F has some awesome patterns in his site…!!!
I smack my share of wildlife for the table as well as the vise!!!..But I do so to the letter of the law!
More from the Greenfield Recorder:
JC the penalty is listed in the article for killing of migratory birds.
"The allegations
In the complaint filed against the two men in U.S. District Court, federal Fish and Wildlife Service special agent Thomas Ricardi says that he and other agents actually watched Zak kill some of the birds as they sat in trees near the fish ponds and the concrete raceway between them.
?On October 4, 2005, (agent Andrey) Guidera and I observed Zak attempt to kill a great blue heron. Zak shouldered the rifle at an upward angle, aimed for several moments … and then fired a single shot,? he wrote in his complaint.
The heron is a wading bird with a long neck and long legs that lives along marshes and rivers.
Ricardi said that he and Guidera later went to the tree where the bird had been sitting and recovered its corpse from the ground at the base of the trunk.
According to DiIorio-Sterling, the killing of migratory birds carries, upon conviction, a possible sentence of six months in prison and $15,000 in fines for each death. This means that for the blue herons alone the two men would face a maximum sentence of more than 125 years in prison and more than $3 million in fines.
The federal government, according to wildlife experts, can issue permits to fish hatcheries to shoot a limited number of predatory birds in order to protect their livestock, but according to Ricardi, no such permits were ever issued to Zak or to the Sunderland hatchery.
On May 6, Ricardi says, government agents watched as Lloyd, who works for Zak, used a rifle on a bipod placed on the back of a car, to shoot and kill an osprey perched in a tree near the western boundary of the fish hatchery.
?When Lloyd shot, (agent Patrick) Bosco saw the osprey being hit by the bullet,? he wrote.
According to the court filings, a necropsy was performed on a random sample of the bird carcasses recovered from the hatchery grounds and the examiner found that all of them had been killed by gunfire.
?Small caliber bullets, such as .223, .222, .22-50 or .22 Magnum were recovered from the carcasses. Several of the fragments were large enough to conduct ballistic comparisons to the rifles from which they were fired,? Ricardi wrote.
Tim Divoll, owner of Valley Sport Center in Easthampton, says Lloyd is a customer and has purchased firearms and ammunition. Those firearms include a rifle and handguns.
When asked about the allegations against Lloyd, Divoll said that he was ?absolutely? surprised. ?He seems like a nice young man,? he said.
Divoll said any ammunition Lloyd had purchased from him was not appropriate for shooting wildlife.
One bird lover?s reaction
?I can?t wait to see how high they hang these people,? said Patricia Carlisle of Turners Falls, when she was told of the arrests.
?It?s so senseless,? she said of the alleged shootings.
According to Carlisle, who avidly monitors the nesting bald eagles of Barton Cove, the local birds are well and on their nest.
?I have been watching them all day. They are both right in their nest protecting the two eaglets,? she said.
According to Carlisle, there is also a blue heron nest in Montague.
?I?m just in shock. I?m in no condition to comment at all,? she said.
Damage to bird |populations
Scott Johnston, who heads a department that studies bird populations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, says that 20 years ago there were only about 600 great blue heron in western Massachusetts and, while the numbers have been increasing, they have not increased that much.
?Because they have been protected, the numbers have been going up, but I doubt that they have more than doubled in that time,? he said.
Wayne R. Petersen, of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, said that he would be surprised if there are more than 900 great blue herons in the western half of the state.
?Their numbers have increased significantly in recent years. You can see nesting colonies all over the state, but some of those only have five or 10 nests,? he said.
?The population has greatly increased, but the loss of 250 birds would be notable wherever it took place,? he said.
Petersen also noted that the herons that were shot this spring were killed during nesting season and thus while they were trying to feed their young.
?This, of course raises the mortality level because, if the parents are killed the young are going to starve,? he said.
Eagles
According to Marion Lawson, of the Massachusetts Wildlife Service, there are currently only four inhabited bald eagle nests along the Connecticut River Valley from the Vernon Dam in New Hampshire down to Hartford, Conn., and five or six nests in the Quabbin Reservoir.
?That gives you 20 adult birds with about 16 eaglets. There are also a number of immature eagles (from one to four years old), which are residents but not old enough to nest. Probably five to 10 birds is a conservative number for the Connecticut River and the Quabbin area,? she said.
According to Lawson, in winter the bald eagle population in the Quabbin is much higher than it is at other times of the year because the birds will flock here from other areas to feed in the open waters of the reservoir.
The federal fish and wildlife service says that illegal shooting still poses a significant threat to individual bald eagles although increased law enforcement and public awareness have reduced shooting from being a cause of large scale mortality, as it was in the first half of the 20th century, to being responsible only for the deaths of occasional individuals.
The fish and wildlife service says that nationally from 1985 to 1990, the National Wildlife Health Research Center diagnosed over 150 bald eagle deaths due to gunshot wounds.
Simon Perkins, of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, said that, given the small number of mating pairs in the state, it would not take many deaths of bald eagles to have a significant impact on the population.
Bald eagles are still on the endangered species list.
Most osprey, according to the bird experts, live along the coast and on Martha?s Vineyard, but there are only a few hundred nesting pairs in the state.
According to Lawson, there is only one osprey nest in the Connecticut River Valley, so it is likely that the animals that federal agents say they found on the grounds of the Sunderland fish hatchery were migrants
?Of course, if the birds from that nest were shot, it puts an end to the resident population,? she said.
Ironically, today is International Migratory Bird Day."
I agree that comparing an intruder that is willfully breaking and entering your house to hurt or kill is no where near the same league as an animal simply existing. A bird having dinner or feeding its young is not the same thing as a would-be murderer. Would I shoot someone breaking into my house? In a second. Would I shoot a bear or moose that was threatening my husband or child? You bet. Would I kill a magpie that pulled up a flower or vegetable I’m raising? Would I kill a deer that is grazing in my garden? LOL Give me a break.
Tyeflies, every time an endangered species looses its battle or becomes extinct, we all suffer. It’s far worse than Enron. If we simply shrug off populations of animals or plants, saying “No one was hurt”, how will that effect the human race in the future? I’m sure no one thought any deeper than today when they were killing hundreds of Passenger Pigeons a day. I’m sure there are a lot of people that don’t care if the last natural salmon didn’t make it to its breeding ground. I’m very glad SOME people care about the dwindling populations.
Bob,
Before you started killing off birds, did you or anyone ask a bird expert about warding off or limiting birds? Asking a group of fishermen what to do will not get you a broad or effective set of alternatives to killing birds of prey. There are a lot of birds experts that would be more than glad to give you workable solutions.
Benjo,
You are a wise person. Enough said.
Folks,
What those jerks at the hatchery is wrong. It’s the same thing as chopping down that huge beautiful tree just to cross a stream. Not only were they too lazy to take a preventative action, it appears they simply killed for the joy of it. How would any of us feel if we saw someone pull three dozen 14 inch trouts from a mountain stream and just toss it on the bank and walk off? Everything and everyone suffers.
Diane ID,
“It’s far worse than Enron. If we simply shrug off populations of animals or plants, saying “No one was hurt”, how will that effect the human race in the future?”
Give me a break! People lost their livlihoods and their future. They lost the ability to take care of their children and their future. Maybe one of those children whose life was changed would have become the medical researcher who came up with the preventative for breast cancer or discover the non-invasive cure? You don’t know.
I empathize with the actual and potential loss/extinction of most animal species. What was the loss of the Passenger Pigeon? Regretable yes. Great loss no. That’s just one example of the destructiveness of man. I’m surprised you didn’t use the Eastern Brook Trout as an example. Man just about wiped that species out. The ‘food chain’ is a bi*ch.
Finally, I did not say these guys were within their rights to kill to protect their crop of fish. I said that I could understand their defense, not that I agreed with it and I said that if found guilty their punishment should be reasonable.
Allan
There seem to be 2 main themes here: 1, that it is wrong to kill the birds and 2, that everyone should have to obey the law.
Anyone who thinks we enjoy killing the birds is sadly mistaken. We certainly do not.
As for the law, I don’t think your laws are too far removed from ours. Own laws give us some, but not absolute, rights to protect own property. The fish are bought by us for use in our business. They are our property and that is exactly how the law sees it. Remember I said we did not get the permit the first time we applied. The people whose job it is to insure the protecting of our wildlife were very careful in their decision making. We didn’t even complain when refused. We simply re-applied the next year. We followed the law to the letter. We would not have done any shooting if the permit was refused.
It is fine to say you would not kill an animal that was destroying your property but how many of you have put down mouse traps to kill little mice that are doing little if any damage to your property? Is there a moral difference between cute and eek, a mouse? A deer or a rabbit eating the odd carrot from the garden is one thing. However, if you made your living tending that garden and you were plagued by rabbits or deer and you could not afford to put up special fences or deterants, you would soon change your idealistic mind. By the way, how much money or volunteer time do any of you donate to wildlife protection or rehabilitation services?
This last part is for Benjo. You know it takes only 1 bad apple to spoil the entire barrel. Your attitude that the rest of the world is here for your enjoyment is totally unrealistic and gives one the impression that this is what Americans are like. (Your statement that “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.” really upset me to the point where I thought it best that I wait a day before replying. At best, your statement is unfair, at worse, ludicrous. What about the Canada goose that migrates to the U.S. just to be shot by an American hunter who didn’t want to buy an already dead goose at the supermarket?) Lucky for you I know better. Where were you when millions of hectares of lakes and forests and all living things in them were being destroyed by acid rain, the result of American industry? It’s a 2-way street, my friend. We can be good neighbours, you know. Just remember, being American does not neccesarily make you the best thing that ever happened to this world.
There, I hope I have made my point.
Cheers
Bob
Bob,
Diane asked: Before you started killing off birds, did you or anyone ask a bird expert about warding off or limiting birds? Asking a group of fishermen what to do will not get you a broad or effective set of alternatives to killing birds of prey. There are a lot of birds experts that would be more than glad to give you workable solutions.
Diane, we most certainly did. More than once. The permits were eventually issued by those same people. I am confident that we made every reasonable effort to protect our property without harming any of the birds. The people we consulted with may very well have been fishermen or fisherwomen but that was not why they were asked. They were wildlife experts employed by the province to protect all wildlife.
Cheers
Bob
[This message has been edited by Bob Williams (edited 16 May 2006).]
I have two small ponds with koi. I have netting over them to keep the heron from eating the fish. If I had a pond so big that I could not net it but stocked it anyway, the large size of the pond would not give me any ‘rights’ to kill birds. There is no law saying I must net my ponds. To ‘plant’ them with fish and to ‘net’ them is my choice. To kill birds who are attracted to this artificial attraction is against the law and just plain common sense wrong. Self importance and greed can influence some judgments.
But, this is America. Perhaps Canada does have laws which allow the creation of an ‘attraction’ that unnaturally attracts birds and then allows for them to be ‘controlled’.
This is just a guess on my part but I would imagine there are provisions in place in the U.S. to cover just such a situation as we have talked about.
I could very well be wrong so if you would like to check into it, I would be more than happy to hear your findings.
Cheers
Bob
“If I create a place or thing (artificial or enhanced) ( pond stocked with fish ) that attracts birds to it, do I have the right to kill the attracted birds (protected or not) to keep them from eating my fish?”
Is that the question I need to check on?
“Self importance and greed can influence some judgments.”. That’s a pretty strong statement there, Mr. Castwell. I am sure there are vast amounts of self importace and greed on both sides of the border. However, when it comes to the self-important part, I am sure the rest of the world will agree with me when I say that Americans really are the leaders in that department.
I apologize here to all the Americans who do not subscribe to the self-importance part. I know there are lots of you out there. I have met you.
This is one I have a very firm stance on.
Right on top of the fence.
I honestly see both sides.
I can tell you a little about property laws in the U.S. and they vary from state to state.
The old adage is (and many take it for gospel) “You are allowed to protect your property by any means”. Well, sort of. There are lot of “shades of gray” here.
If you catch animals in the act of say, killing livestock (dogs, coyotes, foxes, 'coons, 'possums)- you have every right to shoot that animal - unless it is a federally protected predator (owls, hawks, herons, grizzly bears). Then it gets “iffy”.
You are then to call authorities, who will document the damage and you will be paid for your loss (probably/possibly/maybe).
Thus the “3-S System” used so often out west; Shoot - Shovel - Shut up.
In the case of predation on crops or fish, you follow basically the same laws as Bob. You apply for predation permits. You most likely will be directed to take measures other than shooting (fence, netting, gas cannons, etc). After absolutely all else fails you may be given a limited number of “predation (shoot/trap) permits”.
Doubt that under any circumstance you would be allowed to shoot eagles or ospreys but I know permits have been issued for herons. (FYI - guy who raises minnows for a living told me a blue heron will hold “exactly a quart of minnows” and will do it everyday.)
One of theose “whose ox is being gored” questions isn’t it?
Sounds like these guys had taken it to extremes. Bad deal all around.
Mr. Castwell, you are an intelligent man and you know that the question as you ask it is taken totally out of context and is NOT the question I would have you ask.
If you can not come up with a wording for the question, in context, by yourself, I will be happy to formulate it for you.
In any event, I thank you for the opportunity to expresss myself on your forum.
Did you enhance a pond and plant fish in it which attracts birds which you shoot because they are eating your fish?? That is what I thought you said. Go ahead and correct it.
According to the earlier article of the recorder:
“The federal government, according to wildlife experts, can issue permits to fish hatcheries to shoot a limited number of predatory birds in order to protect their livestock, but according to Ricardi, no such permits were ever issued to Zak or to the Sunderland hatchery.”
So yes permits are possible, but you need to go through a process.
Another question concerning one’s right to protect private property. Here is a hypotetical situation:
Someone has fish in a pond, birds come, he kills the birds. Is he kiling the birds to protect the fish or raising fish to have the opportunity to shoot the birds. In the cases we talked about above it is clear that fish are being raised for the fish, not the opportunity to kill birds but it raises some questions about ones “right” to protect one’s property and how that “right” is proven or recognized.
jed
I was sure you would have similar laws in the good ol’ USofA.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of trying to find out for sure.
Cheers
Bob
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“1” face=“Verdana, Arial”>quote:</font><HR>private fly fishing club here in Ontario
keep the ponds stocked
we have to replace fish
ospreys and the herons are constantly grabbing or speering fish
We applied for and obtained a “Scare permit”
we applied for a “kill permit”. We were given a permit in the year following.
We do not kill birds daily
But we do shoot
ponds are far too big to consider netting
we would gladly give up having to shoot the birds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Looks easy. Quit stocking. Quit attracting birds. Quit shooting birds. Let nature strike a balance. Start a ‘Casting’ club. Save all that money. 
If memory servers me correct, many a judge has announced to the defendant…Ignorance is no excuse of the law. Read the law, obey the law and live in peace. I know the laws of a farmer and land owner here in Michigan, some may be contrary to my beliefs but I vote and if I want to change them there is a way. I just gave away my large chicken layer flock. Canada Geese mingle with my once free range chickens. I am trying to look ahead and do not want to be in the middle of a possible Bird Flu issue. I will not kill the Geese just to have free range eggs. It was my choice and the avenue I have gone down and do not want to return to.
Is he kiling the birds to protect the fish or raising fish to have the opportunity to shoot the birds.
Good point. Some insane fly tyers might be willing to raise fish to get their hands on heron feathers.
I’m with Castwell on this one. Osprey and herons are noble creatures of the sky and should be treated with respect, not killed to protect “canned fishing” operations.
Mr. Castwell,
The nice thing about all this is that we can have a difference of opinion. I respect yours. I have mine. Thank you for your input.
Cheers
Bob