Comment on FR Doc # 2010-23342

I support the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposal to authorize the possession and use of migratory birds in support of educational programs and exhibits. I particularly like how these proposed rule changes highlight the benefits of using live birds to create a public appreciation for migratory birds while at the same time protecting birds from exploitation, subjected to performing unnatural acts for the sole purpose of entertainment. I do question how FWS intends to track and monitor the use of migratory birds possessed under educational permits. For example, the proposed rules would require permitted birds to conduct a minimum of 12 public educational programs per year. And institutions open to the public must be open for 400 hours per year. How will these provisions be enforced and what consequences will be implemented? I applaud the FWS’s proposal to accept current guidelines for evaluating the suitability of facilities used to house migratory birds held under educational permits. This prevents the creation of additional and potentially conflict regulations. Having been removed from the majority of their original habitat, few people ever have the privilege of interacting with raptors, waterfowl, or other migratory birds in their natural habitat. Without this interaction, the public can easily become disengaged with the continued plight of migratory species. While the provisions contained in the Migratory Bird Act serve to protect them, it also serves to deprive the public from any meaningful interaction with these birds. A full appreciation for the majesty of an eagle cannot be embraced through photography or distance viewing with binoculars. By expanding the scope of entities allowed to possess migratory birds to promote conservation and enhance public education, these rule changes strengthen the MBA and strengthens our stewardship for the natural world.