Quote:

 

Hi,

With all the apparent confusion, questions, different stories out there on
this Proposed Nanday Ban in Pennsylvania, I decided this am to just call
Fish & Game, and that I did.

I spoke w/a very pleasant lady, who gave me as much time as I needed to get
as much info. as I could.

First, if you want to call, here is the number to call (as I got transferred
around a bit):

PA Fish & Game:
717-787-4250 ~~ Then select Option #2

PA's Fish & Game Website:
www.pgc.state.pa.us

WHERE TO E-Mail Comments/Questions/Etc...
pgccomments@state.pa.us
(there is also a link to click on directly, on their
Website/page)

The person in charge is:
Jason Decoskey,
Chief of Special Divisions

...yes, there is a Rich Palmer (mentioned in a prior e-mail), he is the
Bureau Director, but I was told that Jason Decoskey, is above him, as Chief
of Special Divisions. In your e-mails to the above address, you can address
your concerns to Jason directly, as I will as the reason they are proposing
the Ban is NOT spelled out in their Agenda.

The 1st Mtg. to be held on The Proposed Ban for the Nandays is Jan. 29th ~~
IMPORTANT ~~ ALL FEEDBACK SHOULD BE SENT, WRITTEN, FAXED, BEFORE THE 29TH.

Steps/Stages:
There are 2 Stages this Proposal has to go through, the first is STEP #1:
Poposal to be brought up on the 29th, at the Commission Meeting (feedback
from others WILL be heard then)...IF it is approved by the Commissioners, it
then gets published in the PA Bulletin. STEP #2, it comes up for a Final
Adoption at the next meeting in April, and if approved is then again
published in the PA Bulletin, AND IS FINAL.
So, the TIME IS NOW, to e-mail, call, fax, mail (snail
mail) your concerns/objections.

The agenda is on the Web-page for the PA Fish and Game, it is VAGUE, it is
on Page 39, Section G under 137.1. I am not sure if it will come over
correctly when I cut and paste it, but here goes...and if not, just go to
their Site and it is there:

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/pdf...agenda_2008.pdf

It only lists the Quakers and Nandays in that Section and NO REASON for the
proposed ban, they are just there.

As I wrote, I am going to first e-mail Jason and ask the WHY of the Proposed
Ban, so we know WHAT to object to...how can we write/call if we don't know.
The lady was not able to answer that one, but said that Jason could....and
to ask him to write back with an answer.

As I said, the lady was VERY kind/helpful, making sure that she followed
along w*BUUZBEE to make sure I got the correct addresses, website, page, etc...
very nice.
Where she said that it does not state the WHY she did not feel it was d/t
what I heard the "noise" of the Nanday Conure, she said it would have to be
something to do with: land, crops, other wildlife.
I cannot imagine they can have an Agenda for their Mtg. and not list the
Proposal to read.

ALSO, DO NOTE there IS A GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE, Amen to that one, but as I
wrote that is NOT the ISSUE, or ENTIRE ISSUE, it is that IF they have
erroneous info.
(as others have eluded they believe they are a "colony building" bird like
the Quaker) then we ALL OWE IT TO THE BIRDS/and to fellow PA Residents to
ensure that this gets apposed and NOT APPROVED, and do our parts...WE CAN
HELP, EVEN IF WE DO NOT LIVE IN Pennsylvania, as they have to take into
consideration EVERYONE who voices opposition.

So, get your typing fingers ready, and help out the Nandays and fellow bird
owners/lovers out there in Pennsylvania.

You already know my motto on this one....as IF this should pass, WHO KNOWS
WHICH SPECIES AND STATE will be targeted next (and w/out knowing the who of
the "they"
who are really behind it).

I told the lady they should expect a FLOOD of calls/e-mails from fellow
concerned bird owners/lovers, and she had no problem with that.

MAKE SOME NOISE, NOW IS OUR CHANCE, and we have
2 CHANCES before it can pass, BUT the time is NOW, more importantly...before
1/29/08, so that it does not
get to the 2nd level! There is STRENGTH IN
NUMBERS...send this to your bird and non-bird friends, and those of you on
bird lists, send this out to those lists, and think of the thousands, upon
thousands of folks who we can reach that way, who can then be contacting
Pennsylvania's Fish & Game Department!
Bird Lovers, time to UNITE, and we ALL KNOW we are a Special Breed of our
own, so get working on it, today!!! Please, don't just sit back, read this,
and do nothing... As it is, I am in Southern California, and took the time
to call about something totally across the States, knowing full well it
could affect us, and that we can ALL UNITE TO HELP!

Maybe we can also get some of our super Avian Vets/Vets to write, as well ~~
in addition to Bird Clubs all over the US writing as a Group~~and
individuals.

This should be "ruffling all our feathers" ~~ excuse the pun!!!

On behalf of those adorable Red-Socked Birds (aka~~Nandays), I thank you!


Linda J.
So. Calif.

Quote:

 

-----Original Message-----
From: AFAWR@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AFAWR@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Audrey Hollaar
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:08 PM
To: AFAWR@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AFAWR] (Fwd) [GoodBirdGroup] Fw: Urgent: PA Legislation to outlaw
nanday

From: Jean Clark

Cross posting permitted - you may share this information with interested
parties and post it to online lists.

I have been informed that there are some people circulating the email quoted
below, and that they are incorrectly advising people not to worry about the
presently pending proposal to ban possession of Nandays in Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately the quoted, "PGC Jason Decosky, head of Special Permits and
Wildlife Conservation in the Harrisburg (main) office of the PA Game
Commission", or any other employee of the Pennsylvania government, does not
have the authority to violate Pennsylvania law as set forth in the
Pennsylvania Code. Government employees are required to obey the law
as it is written.

The fact is there is no grandfather clause in the pending proposal (which is
a proposal to amend existing Pennsylvania Code Title 58 (Recreation), Part
III (Game Commission), Chapter 137 (Wildlife), subsection 137.1
(importation, sale, and release of certain wildlife) ). The existing
Pennsylvania Code can be read at:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/browse.asp

The proposed amendment can be read at (starting on page 42 of the PDF
file) http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=481&q=163334

If the drafters of this amendment (presently before the Game Commission)
wanted a grandfather clause they could have easily included one in the
pending proposal to change the Pennsylvania Code. They could also
present a proposed regulation specifically grandfathering existing Nandays
in Pennsylvania from the requirements of this new Code section prohibiting
the "possession" of Nandays. They have done neither.

The assurances of individual game commission staff members, or any other
state employees, while perhaps well-intentioned, are not the law. The
language of the law and related regulations will control, and as the
proposal is now worded, it will be illegal for anyone to possess Nandays
without a
permit (which is not available to pet owners).

In fact, the word "possession" does not now appear in the existing
Pennsylvania Code section noted, and the word "possession" is specifically
being inserted by this proposal into the existing law (in addition to adding
Nandays to the section that previously only banned Quakers).

A reasonable person has to ask why would the Game Commission, or anyone
else, go to the trouble of amending the law in question to specifically
outlaw "possession" with no grandfather clause if that was not exactly what
they had in mind?

Quote:

 

SAMPLE LETTER



To: PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION
2001 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg 17110-9797



By Fax to: (717) 772-0502



By Email to: pgccomments@state.pa.us



From:



Re: Game Commission Meeting January 27 - 29, 2008 - PLEASE VOTE NO on the proposal on the Agenda to amend 58 Pa. Code, §137.1 to prohibit the “importation, possession, sale and release of all non-human primates and the “Conure-Nanday, Nandayus nenday, sometimes referred to as the Black-hooded Parakeet”



Dear Sirs,



I understand that at the January 27 - 29 meeting of the Pennsylvania Game Commission the Agenda of Commission includes a proposal to “amend §137.1 to prohibit the importation, possession, sale and release of all non-human primates and the Conure-Nanday, sometimes referred to as the  Blackhooded Parakeet, in response to human health/safety and wildlife habitat health purposes”.



The Nanday Conure does not pose a threat to either human health or wildlife habitat in Pennsylvania, or anwhere else in this country.



Laws should be based upon provable facts, not on hypotheticals.  The concerns stated in the Agenda are not based on fact.  Nanday Conures have been bred and kept as pets for decades, both in Pennsylvania and across this country, and they have not been shown to pose a threat to human health or safety, or to pose any threat to wildlife habitat, either in Pennsylvania or elsewhere in this country.  This is demonstrated by the fact that after decades of Nanday Conures being kept in  Pennsylvania, there are no groups or colonies of feral Nanday Conures in Pennsylvania.



In the rare event that a Nanday Conure might escape from its owners, it is unlikely that the bird would survive long enough in the Pennsylvania environment to reproduce.    An escaped Nanday  would be unable to find food to sustain itself, and even if it did, would not survive the cold winters, and would most likely be taken by raptors.



These same points apply to non-human primates.    They have not been shown to pose a threat to human health or safety, or to wildlife habitat, in Pennsylvania.



Please vote NO when this item comes up on the Game Commission Agenda.



Thank you.




(Signature)

Quote:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: AFA-Talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AFA-Talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gennygem2@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:20 AM
To: Gennygem2@aol.com
Subject: [AFA-Talk] NEWS FROM PENNSYLVANIA - NANDAY CONURES WILL NOT BE BANNED


Cross posting requested.

I have just received a call from Kristy Garcia of The Coalition of Pennsylvania Aviculturists (TOCPA), and Kelly Williams of the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA), who, together with Rick Rowland of TOCPA, attended all sessions of the Pennsylvania Game Commission to advocate for the rights of bird owners to own and keep their Nanday Conures and other exotic birds in Pennsylvania.

Kristy and Kelly asked me to relay the good news that Nanday Conures have been removed from the proposal to amend 58 PA Code Section 137.1.

This means that Nanday Conures WILL NOT BE BANNED IN PENNSYLVANIA.

Kristy, Rick, and Kelly will have more information later today or tomorrow when they issue their full report to us.    Right now they are on their way home, and will be taking a well-deserved rest from their three days of advocating for you and your birds.

Kelly wanted us to know that the Commissioners thanked them and all who appeared at the hearing, for their politeness, organization, professionalism, and thoroughness in addressing the Commission.    They said that it is obvious that we all love our birds and they were impressed that so many people took the time to come before the Commission and advocate for them.

I want to personally say THANK YOU to Kristy, Kelly, and Rick, and everyone who called, faxed, wrote, emailed, and attended the hearing.    Each person who got involved played an important part in this victory for bird owners and our birds.    Without your help the Nanday Conure would have been banned in Pennsylvania.    With your help we were able to show the Commission that a ban of this bird was not necessary either to protect human health or wildlife habitat.   

I hope that each of you who responded this time will view this victory as a learning experience, and that you will continue to respond when we ask for help fighting other restrictive animal proposals that come up in other areas.

Thank you again.

Genny Wall
AFA Legislative VP
gennygem2@aol.com
www.afabirds.org






The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth.
--Justice Louis Brandeis OLMSTEAD v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)