Polar Bear Hair for fly tying

[hap]

Have bumped into the Summer 1997 issue of the Federal Wildlife Officer internet magazine before but thought this would be a great way to create more sparksala the bird skins threads.

"POLAR BEAR SKINS USED FOR ``FLY TYING''

A cooperative marine mammals investigation between Regions 1 and 7 came to a conclusion on April 14, 1997, when pursuant to a Rule 20, David McNEESE entered a plea of guilty in Oregon to one felony (purchase) count. McNEESE, 45, was fined $2,000; placed on three years' probation; and ordered to perform 200 hours community service.

McNEESE paid an undercover agent $1,000 for a polar bear hide in 1994 which he intended to cut up and make fishing flies to sell at his fly shop in Salem, OR.

Wilsonville, OR,Agents Earl KISLER, Pete NYLANDER, and Jerry WOODS conducted a surveillance as the polar bear hide was delivered and subsequently served a search warrant on McNEESE's shop. The case was originated by Steve TUTTLE with assistance of Wally SOROKA.

Submitted by Jerry Cegelske, , Region 7 "

McNeese has to be a fool to even consider going there. Polar bear is perfectly legal to own and use for tying purposes if it is from a pre-act rug (Marine Mammal Protection Act of '72). I would suppose it is perfectly legal to sell flies tied from said legal hair... But I will have to look into that more deeply now that I am asking questions of the right people anyway.
art

[Fly Tyer]

Isnt there drugs and sexual predators that would better serve officers time? and our tax money? Give me a break,take down the sex rings and the drug trade. Man come on. That seems like a lot of time and moey invested to get a guy to buy some illegal fur. No wonder our world is messed, people have priorities out of whack.

seriously... come on

[Gnu Bee Flyer]

There are plenty of sources online for buying legal polar bear hair. A quick google search and I found several sites in the US advertising legal polar bear fur. Plus a few in Canada. For officers to spend government funds to set up such a sting there must have been something else we are not being made aware of. I just cannot picture officers going from fly shop to fly shop peddling a polar bear skin until they got someone to fall for their evil scheme.

Besides sticking your fly into your shirt to check whether it is barbless like some of them do now. Do we now have to worry about Conservation officers going around checking the DNA of each fly on your hat for Pre 1972 fur?

They couldn't search your fly box without probable cause. I suppose polar bear sniffing dogs could be trained for work in the field.

[DG]

Fly Tyer, are you implying that some laws should be ignored because they are somehow less important? And who would decide that? Would it be OK for me to put toxins in your local stream, since after all it would only kill fish and not people? I mean, who cares if the speed limit is 55 and you go 65? It's not like you could get hurt or anything. We are a society of laws, and if we reach the point where some laws are ignored, or some people are not bound by those laws, we have failed as a society. IMO.

The scale of the illegal wildlife trade in this and other countries is phenomenal, and only gets bigger as people decide they need some rare or unusual animal for a pet, for decoration, or for tying flies. As a wildlife biologist I consider those pesky little laws like the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, CITES, and so on to be important. After all, the reason many of those laws exist is that some species are GONE because people thought they were useful or pretty or obnoxious, and many others are DAMN close. It is the Fish and Wildlife Service's job to be an advocate for those things that have no voice. More power to them.

[Deezel]

Okay, I have to ask:

DO WE FLY TIERS NEED A CERTIFIED/AUTHENTICATED/BILL OF ORIGINATION AND SALE for every natural material we use to show that the animal was killed legally, or killed prior to a specific date, or moulted at such and such farm, or ...? Well, you get the idea.

The example in the original post apparently shows a case where someone knowingly broke the law and, whether you think it's a waste of manpower or not, he paid the price. If you or I are at a flyshop or at a show and happen to see some seals fur, duck feathers, muskrat, porcupine, beaver, etc., etc., are we to seek paper authenticating the materials' legality? And what about buying flies with naturalmaterials? Does the Black Nosed Dace I bought have polar bear hair in it? If so, when was the bear killed and can I prove it?

Sometimes it's surprising that we are allowed to fish at all.

Deezel

[whiskyjack]

There are plenty of sources online for buying legal polar bear hair. A quick google search and I found several sites in the US advertising legal polar bear fur. Plus a few in Canada. For officers to spend government funds to set up such a sting there must have been something else we are not being made aware of. I just cannot picture officers going from fly shop to fly shop peddling a polar bear skin until they got someone to fall for their evil scheme.

Besides sticking your fly into your shirt to check whether it is barbless like some of them do now. Do we now have to worry about Conservation officers going around checking the DNA of each fly on your hat for Pre 1972 fur?

They couldn't search your fly box without probable cause. I suppose polar bear sniffing dogs could be trained for work in the field.

Unless something has changed, here in Canada it is quite legal to have polar bear fur as the ban is a US law. I just ensure I don't have any flies in my box when I cross the border that are tied with polar bear. Calftail makes a good substitute as does coyote fur if you can get a light enough coloured one.

[hap]

DG
"Fly Tyer, are you implying that some laws should be ignored because they are somehow less important? And who would decide that? "

Well in many cases the lawmakers decide which laws should be real. For example in the duck feathers issue the intent of the lawmakers was to stop hatmakers from using wild bird feathers and to allow fly tying to continue. That is why they put in the fly exemption. Coots, woodcock and snipe got past their radar somehow, despite their intent.

Your examples all involve treading on someone else's toes where tying a few flies with legally taken game birds hardly rises to the level of a bio-attack. I am not going to break any law voluntarily, but if I had to break just one and plead my case this would run pretty close to my first choice...
art

[fishbum]

DG, You are right on!

The breaking of the laws protecting animals for ones own conveniance is right up there with not paying Federal Excise Tax on fishing tackle one manufactures because one thinks it "don't apply to a hobby". What does it say to our young people to condone the breaking of any law because we don't like it. If you don't like a law, get your lawmakers to change it.

Break the law, get caught, PAY the PRICE!

fishbum

[bowfin47]

Art,

Ya' can stir the pot all ya' want, but I'm stayin' out of this one...

Have fun!

Bowfin47

[hap]

Not intentionally stirring any pot, just commenting (and poorly so) on the fact rule writers often miss the intent of the lawmakers.
art