Before I start here, I'm not looking to get into any shouting matches, so hear me out. Now I know I'll here some response from George, and others that have made it very clear on what the 50 CFR laws read, but I've taken the time and have read nothing that indicates you cannot pay for shipping on gifted birds, as long as you have the correct documentation. Please refer to sections 20.36, 20.39, and 20.40, which refers to gifting of migratory gamebirds, tagging requirements, and termination of possession. (http:/cfr.law.cornell.edu/cfr/cfr.php?title=50) Now maybe I have missed something here, and I'll be the first to say: "I was wrong", with that being said, can someone please refer me to the section that states that you/me/he/she/we/they cannot pay for shipping on a gifted bird. I don't want someone to say: "I read it somewhere" or "I heard it from so-and so" What I want is, the hard evidence so we can put this one to rest. I thank anyone in advance for their time and effort. Again I'm looking for an answer, not a fight. Pete
Return to Bird Taxidermy Category Menu
This topic comes up about once a month, AT LEAST. Someone researched it as you have and went so far as to get ahold of a USFWS agent. I believe his response was printed here and it was, basically, that EITHER PARTY could pay the shipping in the gifting of migratory birds. Randall Waites went through a similar thing here with woodcock. Perhaps he could shed some more light on this since my memory is a little rusty and, quite frankly, I'm too busy working on competition stuff and trying to keep up on customer stuff to go back and research it AGAIN. But, I may be wrong.....
And you can pay shipping to receive migratory birds. But I would check with the USFW myself if I were you. That is a dangerous thing to trust someone to do the legwork for something like this.
Todd B
But I recall having it explained that the 50 CFR series was simply extracts from Federal Regulations (FR's) that more explicitly defined parameters of conduct. Now if you look at 50 CFR 21, Par. 20.40 and read it carefully, you'll see that it really offerns little or no explanations of GIVING (I have yet to see this "gifting" term used) a wild waterfowl species to another except as to tagging requirements. HOWEVER, if you look at the bottom of that single paragraph, you'll see the referenced FR number. It reads (42 FR 39668, Aug 5, 1977) on my copy. I'm sure that FR has changed many times and I don't have it available to speak with any authority. I've tried the search engines and also get nada. I'm sure if someone finds that referenced FR, it will be explained where even a game warden could understand it.
20.40 GIFT of Migratory game bird
NO Personmay receive,possess,or give to another ,ANY freshly killed migratory game birds as A GIFT, EXCEPT at the personal abodes of the donor or donee,unless such birds have a tag attached,sign by the hunter who took the birds ,stating such hunter's sddress, the total number and the species of birds and the date such birds were taken.
source; [ 42fr39668,Aug. 5, 1997
The issue regarding gifting a bird has never been whether the giving individual could pay for shipping - there is no preclusion in this regard as you address above. The question comes with whether the receiving person can be billed/requested/asked/volunteer or whatever to pay the shipping costs. In those same regulations you will read that you may not sell/barter/trade/exchange a migratory bird not properly permited. The interpretation of this section concludes that if you charge or receive a fee/compensation for any portion of the transaction that fee constitutes receiving money or other valuable in exchange for the migratory bird and consequently it is illegal as you can not sell a live or mounted migratory bird without proper permits. If a buddy calls me up and asks if I can give him an extra harlequin, I say yes and send it to him properly tagged and marked as a gift - so sweat. If however, I say yes but he has to pay shipping and handling the answer is no - because the cost of shipping and handling are viewed as compensation relevant to the bird. Good Luck
Thanks for reading the post in it's entirety. That is exactly the question I was asking, can I the receiver pay for shipping? My only question is this: Where did you read this interpretation at exactly? I have read the entire, yes entire Migratory Bird section and have read nothing of the sort that indicates what you're stating. Is this you're interpretation or have you physically read this yourself, and can you point me in the right direction. I will agree that a person is not allowed to profit from the sales of wild migratory birds, but how can the USFWS in their right mind not allow people to pay for the shipping, when no one actually profits from this? Clewis your response would be much appreciated. One other thing here, I'm talking about gifting a legally harvested (shot) bird. My local DNR has concluded (in their interpretation) that it is perfectly legal to pay for shipping, but what do they know? After all we're questioning this at the Federal level. Thanks again, Pete
Thanks to all the other posts referring to this subject. As you can see it is very subjective, with no one actually definatively positive to what the Federal laws really read. The Feds need to have the 50 CFR book for dummies like myself. They leave these rules and regulations so vague, but if in a pinch they seem to always side against the "small fry". Can we keep this one alive until we find a definative answer? I know what the easiest thing to do would be, to keep it on the "down-low", but I personally would like to keep it on the "up and up", and actually believe that our Government has some consideration in respect to us tax-payers and tax-idermists. Pete
Laws have to have a basis for existing, which includes debates and discussion prior to being written. The intent of the "selling" law is to prohibit proffiting of migratory birds other than legal taxidermy procedures. It's obvious certain officers will stretch the "intent" on certain laws to include things not originally debated when the law was wtitten. In these cases, a judge will determine whether the citation went beyond the intent of the law. In this case, the intent to make money on a bird isn't present so there is no violation. Does that keep an individual officer from writing a ticket? No, but that can happen on just about any situation, there are plenty of horror stories of unjust citations. And, as you mentioned, it doesn't matter if you live in Iowa or California, this is a Federal issue and isn't an individual State or "local" issue. Until someone is issued a citation and they fight it in court and win, there won't be a "see I CAN do that" statement. Maybe this has already happened, I'm not sure.
The law is clear in my mind. But, if you've ever talked with a number of Fish and Wildlife Agents you'd know what where I'm going with this.
They all interpret what law differently. Just like taxidermists interpret what they read or don't read differently. If you read 20.40 Gift of migratory game It's clear you can gift waterfowl. If you only read the first part, it appears no person shall give, recieve, or possess.
The biggest problem is the agent that makes the arrest knowing nothing is wrong. This is what ruins peoples lives.
So get it in writing.
It looks to be interpretive on every level. From the guy gifting to the guy receiving, to the local, state and federal D.N.R., to the USFWS, to the guy who got a ticket, and the guy who never got questioned. Basically no one at any time knows definately, at any given time if it is legal or not. It is so interpretive that we cannot agree to disagree. But, I do know one thing. To all the people who continually comment on the subject of "gifting" that it is illegal to pay for shipping, truthfully don't know exactly if it is or not. Like so many people have stated (and this being the whole truth) it basically comes down to individual interpretation, and the moment at hand. With that being said, I really don't want to see another comment that you, the receiver, cannot pay for shipping on a "gifted" bird, unless you have it written down somewhere, where I and all the others on either side of this coin can read it and finally put this "one" to rest. I've stated before that I'd be the first one to admit that my thoughts on this matter were wrong. Now the challenge is out there, so get your search engines going and maybe, just maybe conclude this ongoing debate once and for all. All in fun, and I know someone is up for the challenge! Thanks again, Pete
The rules are not the same when it comes to us taxidermists and protected birds. Those rules apply to the hunter that your reading. If your talking about birds you took your self as a hunter then you should be ok. But if not your in for some trouble in a big felony way. I have a copy of the sections of the laws that the FFWA use. I will dig them out and send them to George. He can explain things a lot better then I can. I would never ship a protected specie of bird in the mail system gifted or what ever. There are hidden sections that are in the law books that they don't print in the ones that you, we get.
....and that's the crap I'm talking about. I'm not a Harvard Professor here, I'm a simple hunter and taxidermist. Jack, I know the rules are in referrence to the "hunter", but why can't a hunter and a hobbiest taxidermist be the same person. In the State I reside, a person does not need to be a licensed taxidermist to do taxidermy, as long as I'm not doing it for profit. I don't need any permits at all to do waterfowl taxidermy as long as they are mine and for myself. There are so many variables from state to state, and state to Federal, that it make this an almost never-ending topic with no true end in sight. And those hidden clauses........
This must clearly illustrate why we have these exchanges. There IS no clear answer. Its laced with descriptives like "intent" on purpose. For every officer who says yes, its clearly defined and ok, theres another who says no, NO compensation. Throw in the taxidermist who, while paying $200 for shipping a duck, winking, and there you have it. A way to find a loophole, from both perspectives. So, most of us that have been around, send a free bird ...free. We will not accept a fee for shipping.
.....how anyone ever fills their collections. There's not that many friendly people out there willing to give up a perfect bird in perfect plummage, and pay the shipping besides. I went out to Boston and shot some perfect Eiders, and brought back a few extra to share, but what's in it for me. Sure is nice to offer a bird that you payed over a thousand dollars for the guided hunt, and you have to pay for the shipping besides? This is where there is the problem. The only way to make this fare is, "I'll send you a bird (and pay for shipping) and then you send me a bird (and pay for shipping)" Sounds like a trade to me , and now you have a new violation. This is what the Feds want to do, they want to keep you guessing, and at their convenience they'll nail you a$$ to the wall! They in turn "push" people to violate. I think I'll write to my Congressman (I work with his brother) and see if he can get me something in writing. I have to believe the law was originally written with the intent to prevent people profiting from migratory waterfowl. Thanks to everyone's response. Pete