2012 Falconry Public Input Sheet
Date:
Association with falconry regulations: Falconer/Propagator/Bird enthusiast/conservation employee
The Department of Natural Resources is requesting your opinion and comments regarding proposed
changes to the falconry and propagation regulations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has revised
their falconry regulations. Mandated in that revision is a requirement that all states revise their
falconry regulations to be as restrictive as federal regulations in order to keep their falconry
programs. Please review the attached proposed changes to chapter 6238 prior to answering the
following questions.
1. Do you have any objection to the proposed changes as presented in part 6238.0100,
definitions? The proposed changes include updated definitions to the terms currently listed in
the regulations, as well as additional terms and definitions from the updated federal regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
2. Do you have any objections to the proposed language in part 6238.0200 that attempts to
clarify when and what type of permit that a falconer or propagator is required to obtain? The
language in this part has been updated for clarity. A falconer who lives in Minnesota for more
than 120 days is required to obtain a Minnesota Falconry permit (time period based on federal
regulations), a falconer who practices falconry in Minnesota for less than 120 days does not
need a Minnesota falconry permit except when removing wild Minnesota raptors from
Minnesota, and a person wanting to breed raptors in Minnesota needs a propagation permit.
 No
 Yes Comment:
3. Do you have any objections to the proposed language for the Nonresident take permit in part
6238.0200, subp. 3a? The updated language is meant to clearly define when a Nonresident take
permit is needed and to potentially place restrictions on the removal of wild Minnesota raptors
to preserve wild populations from over harvesting by nonresidents.
 No
 Yes Comment:
4. Do you have any objections to the proposed language for part 6238.0300, permit
qualifications? The permit qualifications have been modified for clarity and updated to reflect
federal regulations. In order to obtain a falconry permit, applicants have always been required
to submit an application, score at least 80% on the falconry exam, submit a letter from a
sponsor, and submit to a facilities and equipment inspections (current regulations for
equipment and facilities standards have been removed in deference to the thorough
requirements listed in the new federal regulations) . The signed statements are a new
requirement by the State, which were mandated within the updated federal regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
1
5. Do you have any objections to the proposed language in part 6238.0300, subp. 2 Qualifying for
Propagation permits? Because propagation permits are not contingent on having a falconry
permit, clarifying language has been added to ensure that applicants for propagation permits
are highly qualified individuals who know how to care for and house multiple raptors, can
document those qualifications, and have a purpose for the raptors that will be bred (falconry,
education, research, reintroduction, or business).
 No
 Yes Comment:
6. Do you have any objections to the proposed language in part 6238.0300, subp. 3 regarding the
qualifications for eagle permits? The revised federal regulations allow for falconers to have
eagles (golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, and Stellar’s sea eagle). There are many specifications
in the federal regulations dictating how the permit may be obtained and how eagles may be
taken. The updated language is needed to create eagle permits in the manner outlined in
federal regulations. The state may be more restrictive than federal regulations, and limit or not
allow the activity.
 No
 Yes Comment:
7. Do you have any objections to the proposed language in part 6238.0300, subp. 4 regarding the
use of falconry birds in abatement? The revised federal regulations allow for this activity
through a federal special abatement permit. Falconers would send the state a copy of their
federal permit. The updated language is needed to allow the activity to proceed as outlined in
federal regulations. The state may be more restrictive than federal regulations, and limit or not
allow the activity.
 No
 Yes Comment:
8. Do you have any objections to allowing falconry/propagation birds in education programs and
falconry birds in education films (additional permits and areas of management within current
state regulations may govern these activities further)? The revised federal regulations allow
for these activities with specifications for each in federal regulations. By not prohibiting the
activities in these regulations, some portions will be passively permitted. The state may be more
restrictive than federal regulations, and not allow the activities; therefore, language would be
needed specifying that these activities will not be allowed in Minnesota.
 No
 Yes Comment:
9. Do you have any objections to allowing falconers to act as rehabilitators and to allow
rehabilitation birds into falconry at the discretion of the commissioner (additional permits and
areas of management within State regulations may govern these activities further)? The
revised federal regulations allow for these activities with specifications for each in federal
regulations. By not prohibiting the activities in these regulations, some portions will be
passively permitted. The state may be more restrictive than federal regulations, and not allow
the activities; therefore, language would be needed specifying that these activities will not be
allowed in Minnesota.
 No
 Yes Comment:
2
10. Do you have any objections to creating a new junior apprentice category for falconers who are
between 12 and 16 years old as outlined in part 6238.0400, item A? Federal regulations now
allow for children as young as 12 to become falconers. In order to promote youth participation
in the sport, but ensure safety of these young falconers and the health and well being of the
raptors that will be entrusted in their care, the junior apprentice category was created to
encourage parental participation in the sport and the care of the birds (see sub item 5). In the
event direct parental participation is not available, the sponsor will be entrusted with a greater
role in ensuring that the birds are maintained in a healthy manner.
 No
 Yes Comment:
11. Do you have any objections to the restriction that junior apprentices and apprentices will only
be allowed red tailed hawks until they move to the general falconry permit level? Falconers
suggested this change due to the ease with which red tailed hawks transition into falconry over
other species (formerly American kestrels were included as an alternate choice to the red tailed
hawk). All other sub items under both junior apprentice and apprentice are interpretations of
the mandates required in federal regulations, so they will not be evaluated.
 No
 Yes Comment:
12. Do you have any objections to the restrictions outlined in part 6238.0400, item C that a
general falconry permittee must follow? The restrictions to the class of general falconer have
not been changed from the current regulations (wording has been reformatted to current
syntax outlined by the reviser’s office and to clarify intent of previous regulations). Federal
restrictions on general permittees have been greatly loosened with regard to length of time
needed to become a general, length of time as a general, and number of birds that generals are
permitted. Keeping current Minnesota standards allows for continuity in the program to ensure
current falconers receive the same education for the same duration as past falconers, keeps the
wild take limit at its current levels, and allows the general falconer to gain experience with new
species of bird without direct supervision, but does not allow them to have so many that the
care of those birds suffers.
 No
 Yes Comment:
13. Do you have any objections to the restrictions outlined in part 6238.0400, item D that a
Master falconry permittee must follow? Under the proposed regulations the wild take limit will
not change from current regulations; however, the total number of raptors that will be allowed
for each permittee has been increased from 3 to 5. Federal regulations now permit up to 5 wild
birds and an unlimited number of propagated birds. The three wild raptor limit was retained so
that the new regulations would not have an impact on the wild populations. The decision to
increase the number of birds allowed from 3 to 5 was at the request of the falconers. An
increase to five total birds would allow falconers to fly group hunting birds such as Harris Hawks,
but the increase would not change so drastically from current regulations to risk the care an
individual permit holder currently is able to maintain for their birds.
 No
 Yes Comment:
3
The next four questions pertain to part 6238.0400, item E, restrictions on raptor propagation.
Propagators are not required to be falconers. Current regulations have very few restrictions on
raptor propagation; therefore, there is a lot of room for interpretation of regulation by the
propagator and coordinator in daily operation. The proposed regulations are meant to clear up
this ambiguity. Sub items 4 and 7 are state interpretations of the federal mandates, so they will
not be evaluated.
14. Do you have any objections to sub item 2, the creation of a distinction between an individual
breeder and a larger scale operation? The proposed propagation restrictions are meant to
ensure that individuals who wish to propagate raptors can do so in a humane and healthy
manner. Individual propagators can have three breeding pairs plus may use their falconry birds
in propagation for up to 8 months in a year without transferring the bird to the propagation
permit (11 birds at their disposal for breeding--there are currently no breeders who have more
than 3 breeding pairs). For individuals who wish to operate larger operations, there is room in
the regulations to do so; however, there are standards by which the operations should be run: a
purpose for the raptors that the propagator wishes to breed (falconry, education, research,
reintroduction, business, etc.), the facilities should be adequate for the number of birds
proposed, and the propagator should have realistic expectations of the time required to care for
the number of birds proposed in a healthy and humane manner.
 No
 Yes Comment:
15. Do you have any objections to sub item 3, the requirement to transfer propagated young from
a propagation permit within a year of hatch? The decision to keep the young on a propagation
permit was based on federal regulations, which state, captive offspring may be flown for
training up to a year before they must be transferred to another permit type in order to
continue flying them.
 No
 Yes Comment:
16. Do you have any objections to sub item 5, allowing propagators to take up to two raptors or
their eggs from the wild for propagation? This would be a new permission for propagators that
was previously not allowed in State regulations, but is now allowed in federal regulations.
Master and general falconers would be allowed to take a total of 2 birds from the wild between
their falconry and propagation permits, so their total annual take from the wild would not
change; however, without this sub item, propagators would only be able to obtain wild caught
birds as transfers from falconers.
 No
 Yes Comment:
17. Do you have any objection to sub item 6, allowing propagators no more than 6 wild raptors?
Currently there are no state or federal regulations limiting the number of wild raptors that may
be held under a propagation permit. This sub item would limit propagators to 6 wild caught
birds, and limit falconers to a total of 6 wild caught birds between the two permits. The number
was listed at the maximum individual limit of three breeding pairs (in the interest of
reintroduction programs to increase the gene pool with wild caught raptors).
 No
 Yes Comment:
4
18. Do you have any objections to part 6238.0500, subparts 1 and 1a, restrictions on taking
raptors? The items listed are current state regulations, interpretations of mandates required in
the new federal regulations, or language necessary for the administration of the new federal
regulations (item B). The section has been re-ordered for coherency and the syntax has been
updated to the current standards from the Reviser’s office.
 No
 Yes Comment:
19. Do you have any objections to part 6238.0500, subp. 2, importing wild raptors taken outside
Minnesota? The subpart was updated to conform to current practices and the syntax has been
updated to the current standards from the Reviser’s office.
 No
 Yes Comment:
20. Do you have any objections to part 6238.0600, subpart 1a, flying hybrid raptors or raptors not
native to the United States? As a State the prevention of invasive species has become a high
priority in environmental regulatory practices due to the expense that the taxpayers incur in
eradicating or slowing established populations of invasive species and the damage to native
populations and industry that the invasive species cause. The subpart is a combination of
federal requirements (two functioning radio transmitters when hybrid raptors are flown free)
and requirements that invasive species not be released into the state of Minnesota without
authorization; therefore, raptors not native to the United States will also be required to have
two functioning radio transmitters when flown free. Exceptions to this regulation must follow
the established procedures for proposed introductions of unlisted nonnative species under part
6216.0290 of the invasive species regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
21. Do you have any objections to part 6238.0600, subpart 2, C and D, intentional release of
raptors? Items A, B, E, F, and G are current state regulations or interpretations of mandates
required under federal regulations, so they will not be evaluated. The language in Items C and D
have been added to ensure that the raptors released to the wild from falconry have the greatest
chance of survival. The revised federal regulations allow for the activities in item C, hacking, and
have mandated specifications. The state may be more restrictive than federal regulations, and
not allow the activities; therefore, language would have been needed specifying that these
activities will not be allowed in Minnesota. Item D was added due to concerns that raptors held
in captivity for long periods from an early age would have difficulty surviving in the wild.
Hacking birds and ensuring that they will eat wild caught food will give raptors the best chances
for survival.
 No
 Yes Comment:
5
The next three questions pertain to part 6238.0700, transporting, relocating, and holding of
Raptors. Subparts 1, 2, and 3b are state interpretations of the federal mandates, so they will
not be evaluated.
22. Do you have any objections to subp. 3a, item A, requiring falconers permanently removing
wild Minnesota raptors from the state to get a nonresident take permit? The language
requires falconers to request and obtain a nonresident take permit prior to removing wild
caught Minnesota raptors from Minnesota. Removal of species with population concerns would
follow current nonresident take permit protocols for that species.
 No
 Yes Comment:
23. Do you have any objections to subp. 3c, facilities not owned by the permittee? Some local
jurisdictions do not allow falconry birds, so permittees must house their birds off site; however,
to ensure that birds get quick and adequate care, discretion is left with the commissioner to
ensure that the birds are within a reasonable distance to maintain the birds in a humane and
healthy manner.
 No
 Yes Comment:
24. Do you have any objections to subp. 4, temporary facilities or arrangements? Both subparts 4a
and 4b are current regulations with updated language necessary for the administration of the
new federal regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
25. Do you have any objections to part 6238.0800, banding or tagging of raptors? This part
contains current regulations that have been altered for clarity and to work with federal
regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
The next two questions pertain to part 6238.0900, subp. 1, reporting requirements. Subp. 2 is
current state law with updated language to follow federal mandates, so it will not be evaluated.
26. Do you have any objections to sub item 3, use of falconry raptors in propagation without
transfers if the raptor is used in propagation for less than 8 months? Sub items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
and item B are current state regulations or interpretations of mandates required under federal
regulations, so they will not be evaluated. The revised federal regulations allow for the activity
in sub item 3 (use of falconry raptors in propagation without transferring the bird provided the
raptor is used in propagation for less than 8 months). The proposed change would be for
individuals who have both a falconry permit and propagation permit. Transfer paperwork would
still be required for raptors that were moving from a one individual’s falconry permit to a
different individual’s propagation permit. The state may be more restrictive than federal
regulations, and not allow the activities; therefore, language would have been needed
specifying that these activities will not be allowed in Minnesota.
 No
 Yes Comment:
6
27. Do you have any objections to sub item 4, loans and return of loans? The updated language is
necessary for the administration of the new federal regulations. The sub item clearly defines
when a falconer or propagator must fill out the form for a “loan” or for a “transfer” of a raptor
and whether the bird will count against the recipient or the lender. The language clears up past
ambiguities in terms and in practices. The term loan and transfers are for state and federal
purposes, individuals may make civil contracts to ensure that transfers are not permanent
between the parties if that is their intent.
 No
 Yes Comment:
28. Do you have any objections to 6238.1000, subp. 3, Transfer of raptors if a permittee dies?
Most of the language is directly from federal regulations except that recipients of wild
Minnesota raptors would need to apply for and receive a nonresident take permit, and the
language allows the commissioner some discretion in placing the birds of the deceased.
 No
 Yes Comment:
29. Do you have any objections to 6238.1000, subp. 4, permit revocation? Current regulations
provide for permit revocation and seizure/confiscation of all raptors held if a falconer or
propagator cannot or will not follow regulations. The second part regarding high occurrences of
raptor loss or mortality has been added because it has been difficult to censure individuals that
cannot keep birds alive that are under their care. The new regulations leave several options
open to the commissioner depending upon the manner of deaths. The falconer may need
additional inspections, submission of necropsies, a sponsor, a reduction in class, or permit
revocation.
 No
 Yes Comment:
30. This survey form is being submitted to falconers, propagators, avian conservationists, and
avian enthusiasts. Responses from all parties will be totaled when evaluating the forms;
therefore, areas that you have indicated as “Yes” or that you find personally objectionable
may not necessarily change. In that event, would you be strongly opposed to these
regulations in their current form and request a hearing? A hearing could potentially delay the
enactment of these regulations.
 No
 Yes Comment:
OTHER COMMENTS:
7