Chew's post about crows got me thinking about the only organized crow shoot I ever went on. Near Ft Cobb Oklahoma is one of the biggest crow roosts in the country. They say back in the 50's and 60's over 10 million crows wintered there. I went one time in the early 70's and it was unbelievable. I was with my dad and two of his hunting buddies and we shot two days. Farmers in the area (mostly peanuts, if I remember right) were more than happy to let you shoot on their ground. In those two days I probably shot more shells than I had cumulatively up to that point in my life! The coolest thing was watching them come in to roost at sundown all along the shores of a lake. The sun would be dropping and you would not see a bird. Then about the time the sun was just about to disappear in the west, a few "scouts" would fly over the roosting area. A few minutes later black clouds would begin forming the horizon. For the next 30 minutes in the remaining light, wide swaths of crows would coming in like spokes on a wheel from every direction. It's hard to describe what several million crows looks like, but I'll never forget it. I assume the crows still roost at Ft Cobb but I have not heard anything about it in years.
-
-
I shoot them with my .17HMR anytime they give me a chance. I've also shot a few with my Browning Buckmard from the bowblind from under the feeder. -
are crows legal to shoot ?Comment
-
We used to shoot them often in my grandads pecan orchard in NE Texas.Comment
-
Crows were not legal to shoot last I checked.Comment
-
They've always been legal to shoot as far as I know.Comment
-
From TPWD:
Yellow-headed, red-winged, rusty, or Brewer's blackbirds and all grackles, cowbirds (does not include cattle egret), crows, or magpies may be controlled without a federal or state depredation permit when found committing or about to commit depredations on ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in numbers and in a manner that constitutes a health hazard or other nuisance.
"Or other nuisance" could cover just about anything....Comment
-
Yep, choot em all.Comment
-
-
Heck ya they are... We call them in all the time with the Fox Pro and shoot away.. Kinda fun actually.Originally posted by Mr. Whiskers View Post
edit:
I see this was answered above now.Comment
-
More research might be in order. Provided anyone might care.Comment
-
if you are calling them in just to shoot them, are they being a nuisance?Comment
-
BIRDS PROTECTED BY THE
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. For the current rule and more information click here
For an alphabetical list of MBTA protected birds click here.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has statutory authority and responsibility for enforcing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703–712), the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 742l) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–j). The MBTA implements Conventions between the United States and four countries (Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia) for the protection of migratory birds.
What criteria are used to identify individual species protected by the MBTA?
A species qualifies for protection under the MBTA by meeting one or more of the following four criteria:
(1) It is covered by the Canadian Convention of 1916, as amended in 1996, by virtue of meeting the following three criteria: (a) It belongs to a family or group of species named in the Canadian Convention, as amended; (b) Specimens, photographs, videotape recordings or audiotape recordings provide convincing evidence of natural occurrence in the United States or its territories; and (c) The documentation of such records has been recognized by the AOU or other competent scientific authorities.
(2) It is covered by the Mexican Convention of 1936, as amended in 1972, by virtue of meeting the following three criteria: (a) It belongs to a family or group of species named in the Mexican Convention, as amended; (b) Specimens, photographs, videotape recordings or audiotape recordings provide convincing evidence of natural occurrence in the United States or its territories; and (c) The documentation of such records has been recognized by the AOU or other competent scientific authorities.
(3) It is listed in the annex to the Japanese Convention of 1972, as amended.
(4) It is listed in the appendix to the Russian Convention of 1976.
In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (MBTRA) (Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3071–72), we included all species native to the United States or its territories, which are those that occur as a result of natural biological or ecological processes (See 70 FR 12710, March 15, 2005). We did not include nonnative species whose occurrences in the United States are solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction(s).
On one hard shooting appears to be OK. On the other, NO!
I remember the 1972 Treaty.Comment
Comment