Federal Migratory Bird Tags

This will probably muddy the water some, but here is a point not mentioned in the previous posts. In a lecture given by Attorney Mike Oropollo, at a national convention, the issue of possession limits came up. Many of the observations made above were voiced and discussed - in the end, Mike's opinion was that a bird (any bird legally taken) that enters your shop and is properly recorded, ceases to be owned by the individual and becomes "owned" by the shop - not the proprietor of the shop. Thus, you could have 500 birds in your freezers and not be over "your" limit. The point he was making was that if you enter your personal birds into the shop record with all the relevant requirements, "your" bird changes custody to that of the "shop". In effect, this is what your customers are doing and the option is apparently there for you as well.

 

That is 100% true Craig. There is a time when that bird no longer is part of a possession limit and it is basically when you get it home or at a processors which is what a taxidermist is.
Trophy, call for yourself. Talk to your Law Enforcement people just as I did. I called Texas, Nevada and Kentucky. Got the same answer from all of them. It is an "in the field" issue. Have you EVER been checked by a Game Warden and asked how many birds you have in the freezer at home? I don't give a rats ass if they have been cleaned or not. I'll answer this for you, NO! Have you ever been checked at your taxidermy studio and had a problem with possession limits??? NO AGAIN!!! Why, because it is an "IN THE FIELD" issue. Trophy, look at the Federal regs. It is so vague that it doesn't matter. WHY? That is because it reads only in a form that allows the STATE to refine these regs. It enables the STATE to set the possession limits. It is just a mandate. THIS IS NOT AN OPINION AND ESPECIALLY NOT MY OPINION. This is what the law reads and the interpretation by LAW ENFORCEMENT of how it is enforced. There is a Federal Mandate and the STATE creates their laws based upon that mandate!!!! So if a Warden wether federal or state checks you it is based upon the laws of THAT state that you are in.
Like I said, every bird taxidermist/ bird hunter in the United States would be cited if the law was enforced as you guys see it!!!

Trophy, Call for yourself. Be firm. Ask, "when does a migratory bird cease to be part of your possession limit". Give them some examples and just see how they view the situation. I actually got two different answers from Texas but in the end it was agreed that it was a "in the field issue" because given different examples there is no way to enforce it.....They can't make it stick!!!!

Scott, You are correct that all migratory birds have to have the tag filled out. That is a federal mandate. You also have to mark on the outside of the container carring the birds with the content and ownership. Anything that is sent across state lines and did not have this information in and on the shipment would be a violation of the Lacy Act. Bad things happen when you violate that one!!!!

 

There is no confusion on my part.........

It is clear as can be.

* If I bring home birds/animals that I harvested and process them, skin them etc, then they do not count as part of my possession according to AZ G&F laws.

* If I bring home a duck/squirrel/quail etc. and put it in the freezer whole, IT DOES COUNT AS PART OF MY POSSESSION...that is not an opinion it is a fact! I also have to have everything (whole specimens) I have in my freezer tagged. Customer's duck has to be tagged. If it is my whole frozen duck it has to be tagged with my info on the tag and counts towards my possession limit.

* You can have hundreds of whole frozen ducks in your freezer if they belong to customers and they are tagged........but you cannot have more than your possession limit of ducks in your freezer if they belong to you.



Kerby...

 

Kerby, then if you have birds in your freezer that belong to a customer and they are not skinned yet do they count as part of their possession limit?

If a guy brings 3 Cans to you to mount is he in violation?

 

The Federal laws have always been subject to interpretation and until the specifics (language of the law) are challenged or adjudicated in court and made a precedent one way or another, they will remain subject to interpretation. I have read them many times and consulted with numerous federal and State enforcement officers - they frequently disagree on what the words printed on the page mean and would apply them differently. I think there is room for intrepretation thus my current support to Mike Oropollo's position. Does a skin alone count toward a posession limit when it is fresh, frozen, mounted ? How about skin with the skull and bones attached? How about a skin with the skull, bones and some of the meat (wing meat, leg meat? How would you describe the possession trail when a customer brings in a bird? Does the taxidermist assume individual "possession" of the bird and thus compromise his/her possession limits? Does the customer retain possession responsibility for the bird? Oropoll's point was simple - the "shop" assumes ownership and possession and "shops" are not mentioned in the regulations. You, putting your own bird in the "shop" changes ownership and possession parameteres - it is no longer "yours" when properly entered - it belongs to the shop and your possession limit is reestablished - or so it seems to me. Has this been tested in court? I don't know.

 

Can someone dig up the court case that involved the late David Cowley.

Back in the early 1980's while he was working for the petroleum com. he and one of his customers were charged with over possession and several other Federal violation. These were birds that were logged into his books, but in freezers.. Both received severe fines. The birds were both breasted and some that were not.

Maybe some has more info of knows someone that does. its been a lot of years but the reg have not changed much.

 

Craig, after speaking to several dermists and Law Enforcement folks, to my knowledge the birds in the freezer are not an issue and no one has been cited for such a violation. It is more of an "in the field" issue. It is also what these Law Enforcement people have been telling me. Just like the guy in Nevada told me,"possession limit for doves is 20 with a daily limit of 10. You can't feed 1 person with 10 doves and surly not a family of 4 with 20 so birds, wether just the meat, or skins or whole in the freezer is not our concern. Possession limit is an in the field issue. We don't want a guy camping out and collecting a huge amount of birds after two or more days of hunting." The Kentucky people said that they even tried to drop the possession limit reg just because it is unenforceable except for "in the field". How the hell does anyone know how many birds you have in the freezer as a private individual. Only a taxidermist would be under the microscope with this because they have to record all of the birds under their possession. The birds don't have to be skinned or processed or anything else for that matter to remain legal. Just a question, what is everybody doing that they think that they are breaking the law? Please tell me that????!!!!!

 

i dont think anyone is doing anything harry but bringing up what seems to be valid points and having a discussion.what you keep saying is still peoples interpretation of the laws and your avoiding the issue that they are "grey" at best and leave us all in the middle of a guessing game so to speak....here's a good example of what your saying.call the local police department or highway patrol and ask if their officers write speeding tickets for folks going one mile an hour over?...if they are honest, they will so no but that is not what the law says..its officer discretion and this is what you are getting when talking to these people.imo, if you think simply by calling and asking the resident pencil pusher in the office that day their opinion and base everything you do on that, you better have their name/badge number and have it recorded....right aint always right as i like to say..again, not trying to question your authoriti'....we all know what we have to do but me personally are not happy with the wordings of things.....

 

Blake, I didn't talk to the pencil pusher at the desk that day. In Kentucky, I talked to the Major. I personally have had discussions with her before and I know for a fact that she wouldn't lie to me. I also know the Conorel but I know that he will tell me the same thing the Major did!!! In Nevada I talked to one of the higher up's. He asked me to not identify him so I'm not going to give that away. Same thing. Tell me Blake, if the laws were interpreted like you guys are seeing it, why don't the feds come and check everyone of us and see what's happening. Surely, each and every one of us would be in violation. I'm pretty sure the sky isn't falling.

 

Not me.......

**Surely, each and every one of us would be in violation.**

Not me as the law is quite clear to me.

Kerby...

 

i know its not falling....and i too am not in violation..what im trying to point out is there is too much grey area open for interpretation that CAN make violators out of folks that are'nt trying to be,thats all..

 

Yep,,,,In the field= possession
Freshly shot birds= possession
WHOLE frozen birds= possession
Breasted birds= no possession
BIrd skins= no possession
parts thereof= no possession
mounted birds = no possession

all the above pertaining to individual bag limit possessions. You can have 15,000 frozen birds for your clientele which has nothing to do with your personal possession.

 

ron, you brought up another that needs some clarification(i can see harry's face turning red)...thoughts on the "parts thereof" wording...this mean you cant keep replacement feet ect off of legally shot birds?

 

as i read it, technically, the parts have been processed, therefore no possession. However, parts thereof may NOT be sold in regards to fed controlled waterfowl, as we all know...

 

I see.......

I see RDA gets it.



Kerby...

 

Thanks Big Kerb! I once asked USFWS about crows while running the bird program at AA. What ensued was a file of phone call notes and documentation over an inch thick spread out over four weeks - from the USFWS local office, regional office, natl office, and the USDA local and regional offices and the Vertrinary services is Sanfrancisco. KNOTT a rookie here.

 

Blake, My face isn't turning red. I too know the laws. I'm not in any trouble and never have been. I think that it would serve all of you to READ the laws and understand them in their entirity.
Ron, since you're no rookie, tell me how it is legal to possess migratory bird parts. I just want to know how you do that and keep legal. You too Kerby....I'll wait for an explaination....

 

Well I see nobody wants to answer that one. Here is another one to think about. What about if you travel to another flyway where the limit for mallards is 5 and 10. You fly back home with a possession limit of 10 mallards. The possession limit in your state is 8. Are you in violation??? You have 10 mallards in your 8 possession state. What up there??? That, ONCE AGAIN, is because it is an "IN THE FIELD ISSUE". The world is a big place. I know that it's hard to think outside the box but sometimes you just have to make yourself...

Blake, do not listen the Ron. He hasn't a clue. You cannot possess spare parts of waterfowl. Look at your Federal Permit. Number 11, condition H explicity states "All unused migratory bird parts must be destroyed by burial or incineration". Now how the hell can you argue with that.

 

Herry,, that pertains to CUSTOMER BIRD PARTS,,, NOT YOUR OWN....... : :