Protected Birds in Ontario

[Anonymous]

With all the recent conversations regarding owls and how close bird watchers and photographers are getting to them, I thought that it would be good to list the birds that are currently protected under the Ontario Species at Risk law.  

Golden Eagle
Short-eared Owl
Piping Plover
Black Tern
Northern Bobwhite
Yellow Rail
Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle (south of the French and Mattawa Rivers)
Least Bittern
Loggerhead Shrike
Red-headed Woodpecker
American White Pelican
Barn Owl
Hooded Warbler

For anyone wondering about the fines and penalties incurred for breaking the laws that protect the above noted birds, read below:

40.  (1) A person convicted of an offence under this Act is liable,

(a) in the case of a first offence under this Act,

(i) to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, in the case of a corporation, or

(ii) to a fine of not more than $250,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both, in the case of any other person; and

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under this Act,

(i) to a fine of not more than $2,000,000, in the case of a corporation, or

(ii) to a fine of not more than $500,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both, in the case of any other person. 2007, c. 6, s. 40 (1).

LATE EDIT

Finally, the Snowy Owl and all other owls are protected by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) of Ontario.  Other birds included in this law are: pelicans, cormorants, vultures, ospreys, kites, eagles, hawks, falcons, partridges, pheasants, grouse, ptarmigan, turkey, quail, kingfishers, jays, nutcrackers, magpies and ravens.

[Lee]

Are the penalties just for killing these birds, or does it extend to injuring them?  What about feeding?  We had issues last year with photographers taking feeder mice to the Northern Hawk Owl so they could get photos, and there were issues in BC with an eagle cam where photographers and eagle enthusiasts would take salmon and chicken to a rock near the nest so they could get photos.

[Anonymous]

While I can't speak for BC, I know the law catagorically states here in the Province of Ontario:

NO.

If at any point and time this is observed, take notes and possibly pictures of those parties involved and feel free to email them to me.  I'm not asking for anyone to go out and become vigilanties, but people who do these things need to be stopped and hit with the full force of the law.

[Lee]

While I can't speak for BC, I know the law catagorically states here in the Province of Ontario:

NO.

If at any point and time this is observed, take notes and possibly pictures of those parties involved and feel free to email them to me.  I'm not asking for anyone to go out and become vigilanties, but people who do these things need to be stopped and hit with the full force of the law.

The lousy thing about the BC incident was that the biologist who had the cameras going was in favour of these feedings.  I was shocked and just a bit ticked off to say the least.  It's wrong on so many levels, especially because it's telling the adult eagles that the food supply is plentiful when it may not be.

[Bluffs Birder]

Thanks Attila and Lee for sharing this information.  Although I never saw what was going on with the Northern Hawk Owl last winter, I found it to be very disturbing once I was told that that's what was going on to get such pictures.  It's probably why I was so bothered by what I saw with the Hawk Owl 3 weeks ago down at the Spit (although there were no reports of anyone purposely feeding it), just the sheer numbers of people and equipment (cams and bins) so close to the bird was very wrong in my opinion, it must have been a major distraction for the owl.  I know it constantly kept turning it's head and looking at us and I'm sure it wasn't so we could take pictures.

Walter

[mike]

I witnessed the NHO last year feeding on a white mouse. I actually have a couple of good shots of it too but they're spoiled because of that mouse. A field mouse and I would have framed them. I never did see who put them there. The NHO pulled it out of a stump while I was there watching it.

[JTF]

Interesting posts indeed. Too bad the government allows hunting of waterfowl in our provincial parks such as Presquile Park. This does more harm the the odd picture taking.

[cloaca]

While I can't speak for BC, I know the law catagorically states here in the Province of Ontario:

NO.

Could you provide me with a link that says putting food out for birds isn't allowed in Ontario?  I can't seem to find it.

[Anonymous]

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT, 1994 states:

That it is illegal to hunt any migratory bird where "hunt" is defined below:

"hunt" means chase, pursue, worry, follow after or on the trail of, lie in wait for, or attempt in any manner to capture, kill, injure or harass a migratory bird, whether or not the migratory bird is captured, killed or injured; ( chasser ).

[cloaca]

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT, 1994 states:

That it is illegal to hunt any migratory bird where "hunt" is defined below:

"hunt" means chase, pursue, worry, follow after or on the trail of, lie in wait for, or attempt in any manner to capture, kill, injure or harass a migratory bird, whether or not the migratory bird is captured, killed or injured; ( chasser ).

I don't see how leaving food out for a bird qualifies as hunting, though.  I mean, if you try to fit that into their definition, then me putting out nyjer seed to sneak a peak at some American Goldfinches isn't allowed, either.

Does this act apply to a Hawk Owl, anyway?

[Anonymous]

I don't see where leaving food out for a bird qualifies as hunting, though.  I mean, if you try to fit that into their definition, then me putting out nyjer seed to sneak a peak at some American Goldfinches isn't allowed, either.

Does this act apply to a Hawk Owl, anyway?

In the instance we're speaking about here, that being the baiting of an owl which is protected under said act in order to attempt to obtain closer access to said bird for the purpose of either photography or viewing, then harassment falls under the spectrum of hunting as defined by the Act.  Your illustration of nyjer seed and American Goldfinches doesn't apply as they are considered resident birds rather than ones that migrate as defined by the Migratory Bird Act outlined.

As a personal side to this, that owl will now never be the same again.  I could go on and on and on about how bad it is to imprint on a wild bird, especially a raptor who's sole basis for survival is to avoid any and all human contact what so ever.  A bird of prey that becomes a human imprint loses its ability to hunt, to fend for itself, and in essence to survive.  This same advice should be given to people who believe that feeding feral cats is necessary in order to help them survive.  Well, I've got news for you - they don't need your help.  They don't need your food.  They can, and do, fend for themselves very well and as a matter of fact are greater killing machines than any other top of the line predator that we have here in the city.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to care, but learn about what it is that you are trying to care for and then figure out what may or may not be in the animals best interest.  That goes for birds as well.

Attila

[cloaca]

In the instance we're speaking about here, that being the baiting of an owl which is protected under said act in order to attempt to obtain closer access to said bird for the purpose of either photography or viewing, then harassment falls under the spectrum of hunting as defined by the Act.  Your illustration of nyjer seed and American Goldfinches doesn't apply as they are considered resident birds rather than ones that migrate as defined by the Migratory Bird Act outlined.

American Goldfinches are protected by that act.  Hawk Owls, however, are not.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nevermind what is and what isn't protected, though.  How is putting out nyjer seed to get some photos of goldfinches really all that different from putting out a mouse for an owl?  I agree that it is, but how is it different as far as the law is concerned?

[accwai]

[...]
Nevermind what is and what isn't protected, though.  How is putting out nyjer seed to get some photos of goldfinches really all that different from putting out a mouse for an owl?  I agree that it is, but how is it different as far as the law is concerned?

Well, based on just reading the text quoted by Attila, I'd say putting food out would be perfectly Ok in both cases.  If you just put the food down and leave, that is.  Now if you bring food and then wait around for your chance to take a picture, you have to "lie in waiting", and you break the law in both cases.  In fact, even if food is not involved at all, taking a decent picture will most likely include some kind of following and waiting, and thus will most likely break the law anyway.  Scary...

Andy

[Anonymous]

Cloaca,

Hawk owls, along with other raptors, are considered to be Schedule 7 "Specially Protected Raptors" under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.  The Federal Government does not legislate protection of raptors, they leave that to provincial governments.  The Migratory Bird Act is enforced by provincial Conservation Officers (CO's), and under Provincial laws, the birds listed as both specially protected raptors and specially protected birds (other than raptors) fall under the statutes of any laws which are being enforced.

To see a full list of specially protected birds in Ontario, look here - http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statut ... .htm#BK136

With regards to how it is different as far as the law is concerned, it depends on the intent of the baiting itself.  If your intent is to simply observe the birds for your enjoyment, then that would be considered fine under the law.  I have my own personal reservations of course.  Now, does having a bird feeder and you approaching the gold finches on it mean that you are harassing them in your attempts at taking pictures?  That I can't determine.  Remember, gold finches can flee a lot easier from your backyard as they can go to someone elses yard which isn't accessible to you.  Owls that are in the wild are going to fly away, but because people are on public land, they can follow unless inhibited by resulting trespassing laws.

Andy,

It isn't so much the lying in wait that breaks the law - it's the actions that you take if and when the bird does show up.  Are you trying to capture, kill, injure, or harass the bird?  Remeber, as we've been discussing, we're talking about baiting birds for the sake of getting close to or in my words "harass" birds in order to get photos of them.  Lying in waiting for a bird which is unaware of your presence in order to take a picture of said bird while it is acting naturally, like flying by while hunting, isn't contravening any laws at all because you aren't harassing or desiring to cause injury to the bird at all.

That is what photographers should be attempting to do - catch photos of birds as they act naturally.  That should mean putting in the legwork and finding their ranges and their favourite haunts and then waiting in said areas to get the photos of the birds.  It doesn't mean, while an owl sleeps during the middle of the day, that you walk to the base of the tree they're at and shake it in order to make the bird take flight in order to obtain a flight shot.

Cheers, Attila

[accwai]

[...]
It isn't so much the lying in wait that breaks the law - it's the actions that you take if and when the bird does show up.

Well, that may be your interpretation of the spirit of the text, but I don't see waiting and then harassing in the text.  In fact, there is an "or" between waiting and harassing.  So the letter of the text can be interpreted more strictly than your version.  That's all I was trying to say.

That is what photographers should be attempting to do - catch photos of birds as they act naturally.  That should mean putting in the legwork and finding their ranges and their favourite haunts and then waiting in said areas to get the photos of the birds.

I agree about the acting natural part completely.  However, I don't see why staying low, approaching slowly and back off on any sign of alarm is essentially different from waiting for the birds to come to you.  In fact, I'd imagine if a bird approaches you in a hide not knowing your there and you inadvertently spooked it at close range, that would be much more harmful than working with the bird and approaching slowly.  Don't you think?

It doesn't mean, while an owl sleeps during the middle of the day, that you walk to the base of the tree they're at and shake it in order to make the bird take flight in order to obtain a flight shot.

Interesting!  The idea of shaking the tree has never crossed my mind until you mentioned it.  You evil person you :twisted:  Fortunately, I'm mainly into gulls and stuff.  They are pretty robust.  So don't worry.

But under the circumstances, I don't see anything wrong with quietly approaching, take a photo of the sleeping owl and then leave.

Andy