Happened to look closely at the packs of wood duck feathers I just got from Blue Ribbon Flies.
The product comes from Hareline, which is a huge wholesale supplier of fishing products.
Is someone saying they are doing something illegal by supplying these feathers?
Personally, I can’t immagine that. Let me know.
A few posts above (15, 18, 23) talked about the illegality of selling wood duck parts. In this case I believe the ‘parts’ are the flank feathers. However, this topic has been played, relayed and parlayed. Always found to be legal. Take your own chance(s)(.
Allan
I am asking anyone who says it is illegal to explain it to me. I would not participate in using illegal feathers. However, I find it very hard to believe that a company like Hareline would sell illegal feathers. Especially to fly shops and fly fishermen, who, on average, are true conservationists…
Let me know. I intend to ask Hareline about this.
Thanks
Byron,
IMHO don’t take the word of anyone here. If you’re that inquisitive, you would get the most accurate information from companies like Hareline, Wapsi, Rumph, Cabela’s, Orvis and maybe other large volume material suppliers. Those companies most likely have had their attorneys look into it and can probably quote statute and section. Regardless, if you take the eyeball test, meaning you look at what’s going on and see how it’s being dealt with, getting and then selling woodie (and other ducks) is being done openly and broadly. If it were illegal, someone would’ve known by now. But if you check, please post the results of your inquiry.
See previous posts. In some states it is legal to sell parts, it seems like, and with regard to commercial sources, am sure they are selling legally.
Mike
Just dont want miss-information about this as many tiers use the material. Should be pretty clear-cut issue.
Byron - All anyone needs to do is check the federal USF & W regulations(see below). It specifically authorizes the sale, barter, gifting of a legally taken waterfowl if used for fly tying.
Mike - “See previous posts. In some states it is legal to sell parts, it seems like, and with regard to commercial sources, am sure they are selling legally.”
Regulation from USF&W:
e-CFR Data is current as of April 23, 2014
Browse Previous | Browse Next
Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries
PART 20—MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING
[HR][/HR] Subpart J—Feathers or Skins
[HR][/HR]?20.91 Commercial use of feathers.
Any person may possess, purchase, sell, barter, or transport for the making of fishing flies, bed pillows, and mattresses, and for similar commercial uses the feathers of migratory waterfowl (ducks, geese, brant, and swans) killed by hunting pursuant to this part, or seized and condemned by Federal or State game authorities, except that:
(a) No person shall purchase, sell, barter, or offer to purchase, sell, or barter for millinery or ornamental use the feathers of migratory game birds taken under authority of this part; and
(b) No person shall purchase, sell, barter, or offer to purchase, sell, or barter mounted specimens of migratory game birds taken under authority of this part.
If it is so clear, why are some refuting it? That’s what I don’t understand.
Personally, if big, well known, national distributors are supplying them, I pretty safely, I believe, assume such sale is legal. Whether they be US sources or otherwise.
Byron,
I have been involved in numerous discussions about this topic for many years.The discussions always end by reviewing the federal regulations, which the states’ environmental departments follow. Also, what you wrote is a perfectly logical way to assess the regulation, “if big, well known, national distributors are supplying them, I pretty safely, I believe, assume such sale is legal.” Exactly. For example, if maodiver is right, how does CA Fly Shop, The Fly Shop, Bob Marriot’s and Trinity Fly Shop sell the feathers? How about Orvis and Cabela’s or any other on-line retailers?
Refuting… Well, there are a folks out there who pontificate about what they “wish or believe”. Plus, there are others who have spoken with “someone” in the past and therefore “know it all”, and they believe that their someone is more reliable than the other guy’s “someone”.
I used to periodically participate in these feather discussions on this site, but after explaining the answers that I received directly the legal session of US Fish and Wildlife in Washington, I was scourged by one of the folks who has already commented on this string. The most interesting thing is that individual now gives that same facts that I previously gave… Ha!
Actually, even the answers from USF&W “change”, and they refused my request to post their interpretation on their web site. (This was several years ago.)
Kyle
We were talking to some of the same folks at USFWS, but you brought in anecdotal stuff from a marketer about not being able to GIVE away legally held feathers taken from legal game birds… that was where you got into the deep end of the unreasonable. I am certain my answers at the time about the actual legal discussions were not that far from the answers you received.
And you are drawing things mighty different from memory than the actual facts of the previous discussion. Unless someone has altered electrons I bet it would be fairly easy to find those discussions… My notes say I had those USFWS discussions in 2010.
art
The problem is the poster has found a legitimate quote from CA law which conflicts with what you found. And CA was one of the main reasons I gave up on trying to find definitions of it all. The conflicts in their laws are many…
art