Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Taxidermy Industry' started by scpol, Dec 8, 2011.
im just giving up on this thread GOOD LUCK ALL!
My opinion is you should have a long time ago....
Have you RE read your permit?
Ron, please tell me why I should. I know that bird parts "from others" can't be possessed just as you do. Says so right there on the permit. If it is your own and you have it in "your" shop written in "your" book then YOU CAN'T HAVE IT even if it's yours!!!! The possession has been transferred to the business and the business can't have migratory bird parts of others. If you are the licensee then you still can't have them in your shop. It doesn't matter.
I'm going to Mexico and shoot birds with Shane Smith. He, just as I, know the damn laws. I guess when I shoot 5 pintails and bring them home I'm in violation. In Kentucky I can only have 2 buy what you people are saying. I guess I'm now just gonna invite all the Federal Agents to come and arrest me. I ain't gonna skin them and I'm going to go hunting the next weekend and I hope I shoot a pintail. That will really put me over the limit......!!!!
Harry, does out of country shot birds count against us possession laws? The answer is NO. Ive had customers in the past that brought in 140 whole frozen ducks of species that were far less in bag limits here in the US than Mexico. They were APPROVED BY USFWS, and the USDA with shinning certification. That tells me that there is a separation of "countries" and as you know, each bird must be individually wrapped with a copy of paper work and the scientific name written on them, therefore they are identifiable.
as for your parts reference, i had a display built years ago with the wings of all the common waterfowl in the area, all personal shot bird wings. I used them in displays at local DU banquets and such. WHEN inspected by the USFWS over one of the larger cases ever attempted against a commercial taxidermist, they looked - asked, were told and said "oh"....And onto the next question......They were no different than my personal mount collection,, they had been processed, and were not for sale.
and may your hunt be a slammer!
It really isn't worth arguing over. The mount you had with the wings was a finished product and therefore doesn't count against anything. What the permit reads NOW is you can't have unused parts of any migratory bird. Says so right on the damn thing!!! Can you believe that!!!!
The Mexico hunt, bad example because they all have to come to me (USDA) to be cleared. A better example would be coming from a different state where the possession limits are different than that of the one that I live in.
Boys, it really doesn't matter. I have talked to Law Enforcement in several states and they all tell me the same thing. That possession limits are aimed at in the field issues and not what you have in the damn freezer at home. It doesn't matter if you believe me or not or wether it's dark outside or daylight. You do what you do and I'll continue to do what I do. I wish you the best...
Ron, Blake, Kerby,
Here is a conversation that I had with someone that "KNOWS" what possession limits are and how they are defined. He wanted to stay anonymous so I won't identify him. Like I said before, possession is an "in the field" issue. Once it reaches your home or "abode" it doesn't count as part of your possession whatsoever. Wether cleaned or not! Wether a private individual or a taxidermist. Please tell me you understand this now....
"Hey, Harry, and good morning,,,possession is a "field" thing,,,a dove hunter can have hundreds of cleaned breasts within his home, as he can legally hunt every day of season, he just can't travel from the field, to his HOME with more than possession, once cleaned at his HOME, he can have hundreds. Also, keep in mind, if this hunter is coming to YOUR home to cook a hundred dove breasts for a game dinner, technically, he is breaking the law, especially, if the dove have no wings or heads for identification..same as a duck breast,,,it is legal in your home, but, not to be transported without an identifying wing or head. A hunter CAN bring you fifteen canvasbacks, as long as, per the rules, tagged for "transport" to your studio, showing he killed one a day, and they have been "domiciled" in his house. thus, the tagging requirement. It proves one was killed daily, not fifteen in one day. It's simply, Harry, just have your hunters tag stuff, and you tag stuff to prove it's a hunter's bird, and that completes the paper trail. You know, enforcement is weird, well, as you know, check this out,,,,,,technically, the wife of a hunter is breaking the law, bringing to you a duck for her husband! That's why, if everything is tagged for transport, there is no problem. Anywho, give me a jingle if you'd like to discuss this further!"
Here is something to ponder, Here is how it reads right out of the State Of Utah Proclamation Page 20, waterfowl 2011-2012
"For example, if you have 10 ducks at home in your freezer, and you accept 4 ducks from another hunter, you now have 14 ducks in your possession.
That's the maximum number of ducks you can have in your possession in Utah. You’ll have to eat some of those ducks before you can go hunting and take more."
I called our main Salt Lake City DWR office and he Explained it just as it read. No grey area here in UTAH. Now the CO said the grey area starts with processed birds with no markings of the bird. Say the possession of Mallards is 6 per day, 2 pintails per day. now how do you tell between the two without wings or head still attached to the parts. I asked about out of state birds and really had no answer for that. Really wasant aware of the Federal migratory bird tag?? Said how easy would it be if I get home and print off tags and fill them out????? So living in Utah it has nothing to do with """ IN THE FIELD "" or from the transporting to your abode.... Harry if you can get more out of a translation than I did good luck?? So if I as a hunter have more than 14 birds, processed or not in my house I am breaking the law??? Just something on how the Rules differ from one state to another.
H2O, I called Utah Fish and Wildlife as well and got a completely different response. Was told it was an in the field issue. It is impossible to enforce the way that they have told you. There is so much confusion about this subject even within the Wildlife agencies themselves. When I first asked the question when I called the Ky Fish and Wildlife the guy answering the phone said the same thing that you did. "You can't have more than twice the daily limit". I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT STATEMENT IS INCORRECT so I called and asked for the Major. I have had conversations with her before on different matters and she said exactly what I am saying, "IT IS AN IN THE FIELD ISSUE AFTER TWO OR MORE DAYS OF HUNTING". The same thing happened in Utah. The moron answering the phone misinformed me about the real interpretation of the law but once I called back and asked for someone a little higher up the ladder so to speak then the response was quite a bit different. I'll ask this once more, "how many people do you know that have been actually cited for this violation"???? I don't know of anyone. It would be impossible to enforce anyway.....I really don't want to argue about it anymore......
Harry at no point was I arguing with you. All I did was take your advice and called our reps. I too was curious. This has made me more aware of our rules. I copied and pasted it word for word out of the proclamation. I take that as the State of Utah's interpretation. I understand what the feds say. But to be cited and try to fight this in a court room. ( like you said what are the chances? ) All the CO has to do is bring in a copy of that and I don't think anybody in "UTAH" would have a leg to stand on. Now the issue is about tagging birds that come into your shop. Just like the feds "blanket tag" it doesn't require a licence #. It states in the Utah proclamation that the hunters licence # must be on the tag also. I personally don't have any question if a CO comes to do a inspection and sees every thing tagged, booked and in order, that there would be any problems. Just another good reminding, informative post to keep it clean. It made me look into it a lot futher than I have before. So I will be more prepared if anything like that would happen.
My head hurts....
H2O, I did not mean that you and I were arguing. If you will look at the previous 5 pages though it appears to me it's an argument and I simply don't want to argue about this subject anymore. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that you followed up on what your state says. Just as I mentioned in a previous post, the Feds merely manifest that the states can regulate Migratory Game birds and set the guidelines. If the state wants to be more restrictive then they certainly have the right to do so and some ARE more restrictive especially concerning taxidermy regulations. Also, in the field guide, it is AGAIN aimed "at in the field". Once the birds are "domiciled" wether they are cleaned or not it doesn't matter.
Question, "have you ever in your life or have you ever even heard of anyone being asked while getting checked WHILE IN THE FIELD how many birds do you have at home in your freezer???" I will guarantee that NOBODY has ever been asked that question. How in the world could they enforce such a stupid regulation. They can't because that is not how the law reads. Like I said, I don't want to argue about it anymore. It doesn't matter.....
Ryan, my head hurts too!!!!
My advice for everyone would be to check your own state statutes,administrative rule, etc. I agree with Harry many of those in enforcement have a different interpretation of the same rule. Go to the top don't take the word of the person answering the phone. I have sat in the office of the Idaho fish and game chief of enforcement or the assistant chief of enforcement asking questions several times, and they sometimes have to scratch their head a little before coming up with an answer.
In the Idaho waterfowl regulations it says.
No person shall possess more than the possession limit even when such birds are stored at home or are being processed at a commercial preservation facility.
I also agree that this isn't something that is enforced very often. I asked them what if the possession limit this year is 14 birds, and it changes to 10 birds next year. More head scratching.
To be on the safe side I skin any personal birds that I want to keep and eat them. They also take up less freezer space that way.
You're exactly correct Terry. Law Enforcement doesn't want to come out and say what the interpretation REALLY is because they might have actually charged a guy in the past that didn't fight the damn thing and just pleaded guilty instead of going through with contesting it. Just like the search and seizure laws concerning taxidermy. They will DO what you let them DO. That is why it is very important to become familiar and educated with the laws in your state. That is exactly what happened when I called Utah. At first the guy said that you can't have more than twice the daily limit ANYWHERE. Then after more prodding and the guy realized that I knew what I was talking about then the story changed. Same thing happened in Kentucky. ALSO, these booklets that are distributed as field guides to the laws and regulations are NOT the Holy Grail of Law Enforcement. In most cases they will even disclose that fact and say that you need to refer to the actual law as written in the ACTUAL Manuel. They have to do that to cover their a$$ in the event that they charge someone on a technicality that is not outlined in the field guide.
Here is an interesting point. You can have more than your possession limit WHILE IN THE FIELD if you take your duck breasts and simply sear them. You can put them in a cooler and keep hunting. At that point the breasts are FOOD and no longer are considered wildlife. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE LAW!!!!
you need to get a law degree now to practice taxidermy........
In Ky we had some questions about our rights as taxidermist when KDFWR came knocking on our doors.(Harry was helpful with this too).
Our State association (KTA) hired a lawyer to research our concerns and submitted a pretty good draft answering our questions (his opinion). It probably prevented a few of us from getting in trouble.
To me that kind of stuff is what a State Association should be doing. You can pool your resources that way.
When you submit a State Wildlife agency with questions the answere is always going to to be what is the easiest FOR THEM. That answerer is not necessarily going to hold up in court if you are cited.
Hiring a lawyer familiar with Wildlife laws can save everyone a lot of grief.....
Just my 2 cents