Re: mourning dove?
We've gone through this before on another thread. This is why legal issues need to be left to attorneys.Originally Posted by Flyrodde
He is referring to United States Code Title 16, Chapter 7, Subchapter II, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), which has been ammended many, many times over the years and is still a monstrosity.
Convictions are rare when filed only under the MBTA, and most have been for gross, purposeful violations by cooperations, farmers, or groups of individuals. The FWS, as a matter of policy, does not enforce the MBTA when it involves logging operations or any government agency.
Sections 703 and 704, under Prohibited Actions, even start with the statement " Unless permitted by Regulations...." Hunting Laws are Regulations, therefore legal gamebirds in the US are not covered by this Act, at least during hunting seasons. Other laws cover what you can and cannot do with legally harvested gamebirds, but not this Act, by it's own wording.
Under the MBTA, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine under what circumstances the hunting of migratory birds is permissible, and exercise descretion as to enforcement, therefore, the MBTA is not a blanket prohibition against killing migratory birds, it simply prohibits killing migratory birds in an unauthorized manner. For example, the Department of the Interior has promulgated regulations allowing hunters to kill migratory birds, as long as the hunters do not hunt over baited fields, or outside authorized hunting seasons.
The Dept. Of Interior also exempts the U.S. Military and it's personnel from the MBTA when pursuant to military duties. Windmill Power Generator companies, power companies and even Airlines have been allowed to 'get by' with selective non-enforcement. Also, individuals are prohibited from pursuing legal action against any of the above concerns for lack of enforcement (US Supreme Court; 497 US 871, 891 (1990) Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation). To date, there have ben few sucessful convictions under this Act when used as the sole basis for prosecution. 8 out of every 10 cases are summarily dismissed on technicalities.
Here is the kicker that makes this law so difficult to enforce against individuals simply possessing feathers. Section 711 of the MBTA states: The Act cannot be construed to prevent the breeding of migratory game birds on farms and preserves, and the sale of birds lawfully bred to increase the food supply. Not only are Migratory game birds bred by companies and individuals, but they are bred in some case specifically to be re-introduced in the wild, ie; STOCKED. In Ga. as well as many other states, any dove you see is more than likely stocked, as are ducks and geese. And in United States v. Conners, 894 f. 2d 987, 994 ( 8th Cir. 1990), the US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the MBTA does NOT apply to captive-reared birds, regardless of where they are found. And since it is Criminal Law, then United States v. Delahoussaye, 573 f. 2d 910, 912-913 (5th Cir. 197, known as the "Delahoussaye" Ruling applies, which means that to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that (a) The bird(s) in question were indeed wild and not captive-bred, and (b) the Defendant knew, or should have known the birds were wild, and not 'stocked'. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
I did "READ THE LAW", and here it is, http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/fedbook/mbta.html. But reading a law is not enough. You also have to apply it to other similar laws, and Case Law/Precedents to understand it's 'real world' applications. As I said before, legal matters are best left to attorneys and judges.
The chances of you being prosecuted for tying flies with your dove feathers are almost nil. If you got them legally, then you can do what you want with them, except maybe sell them, at least as regards to the MBTA.
Semper Fi!
Reply With Quote
