Hi,

Dixieangler has hit the nail on the head. The reason the law is written to outlaw the actual possession, rather than just the method of how the animal was killed, is to make the law enforceable.

If, for example, it was decided that feathers from bald eagles can be used to make fishing flies, provided the feathers are only obtained from gathering "found feathers" (ones on the ground), or from road kill, etc, then it means unless you can prove someone killed the eagle themselves, you cannot do anything about it. However, if you make it illegle to have the feathers, you can prove they had the feathers.

Now, it may sound silly, how much demand can there actually be for some feathers?

Well, Jungle cock was rendered almost extinct because of the demand placed on it's feathers. It's only allowed to be traded now if it's been farm raised. In New Zealand, the "matuka style fly" is so named because the bird that was originally the supplier of the feather is called a matuka. One can no longer use those feathers because the matuka was likewise almost driven to extinction because of the demand for matuka feathers for matuka flies.

Sure, you and I might not go out and intentionally kill endagered animals, but if it is not illeagle to possess the feathers and/or skin, and if there is a market for those products (black market or otherwise), then someone else will poach them. And they will sell them.

This tendancy will increase the easier it is to get away with poaching. And if all you have to do is 1) kill animal, 2) not be seen doing it 3) claim you found it that way "But officer, it was already dead when I arrived", then poaching will increase. Sure, you could still prosecute them if you can catch them selling the materials, but it might be considered silly to prosecute someone for selling "road kill" gathered items since it's ok to gather and posess them. Why not let someone make a living at it, and it helps clean up the roads at the same time. So again, the law would get re-written, and again, all this does is make it easier for the poachers. Eventually, people get annoyed that the poachers "get away with it", and so the laws come back : You cannot possess these materials, x,y, and z.

So, which do we want? A law which, in some circumstances appears silly because one can imagin situations where "breaking the law" seems like it shouldn't be punishable? Or a law which, on paper, clearly targets the offence but is so impossible to enforce there might as well not be a law keeping in mind that without a law that may mean putting up with a loss of some species due to overzealous harvesting?

Laws are funny things. They have to be enforcable to be effective, and sometimes to be enforcable they have to "outlaw" some pretty benign activies.

- Jeff