Preserving Duck Feathers

[1st.YearTyer 0]

Perchjerker-first you said "only borax" then in your last paragraph you say your "wings on the roof with salt".Why confuse the guy?

I have 18 Hawks/Falcons/Owls and songbeards taxidermied in the living room.Never had a problem with the officials with the birds on the way to the office.

[perchjerker 0]

1st.YearTyer;

 

In my part of the world, we make a profound distinction between the "skin" of a bird and it's "wings". Borax on the skin and inside the wings if you can get the flesh out. In closing, I added a paragraph in which I said that I have "dried" duck wings on a roof with a little salt on them. You appear to be the only "guy" confused.

 

How about you killing that raptor/ songbird today and walking into your local taxidermist's shop to have it mounted, or to your local DNR office with the fresh dead bird to get your permit?

 

There are too many unknown factors related to the history of your mounts for them to be used as a valid example in your points. All you have to do is take a look at your (Canadian) MBCA, as I have, to see what the Canadian "LAW" has to say on the subject.

 

perchjerker

[perchjerker 0]

Markbob:

 

You misunderstood. Pigeons ARE NOT protected! They, along with house sparrows and starlings are the only three species NOT protected, and listed by name, within the law.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

 

Did not mean to be insulting when I defined CFR, but my technical writing training dictates that any such acronym, or abbreviation, be defined. Just following the dictates of my training.

 

perchjerker

 

(By the way, sea gulls ARE protected!)

[1st.YearTyer 0]

.....and I am done responding to you perchjerker,the name says it all!

[perchjerker 0]

I simply do not understand why you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to dispute everything I have said. What have I done to you? I can verify everything I have posted that you have attempted to refute. GROW UP! Such adolescent behavior is unwarranted on this forum. And now you stoop to name calling by inference to demonstrate just how low you can actually sink. Pitiable.

 

perchjerker

[poksal 0]

PLEASE READ this is important to me.

 

I do animal rescues for a living, I must know these laws. I cannot even disturb the nests of protected species during active occupation. That only leaves three general wild species of birds. Wild birds are what the laws are concerned with.

 

As a Certified Texas Master Naturalist I am under additional obligations.

 

To simplify, as I understand what I have been instructed, the laws are written to prevent the taking of protected wild species. If you have in your possession any parts of a migratory water foul in the US you better make sure you have the license to harvest that bird AND if it is on your person in the field it had better be in season to hunt. If you provide a protected wild animal to a taxidermist you must be able to prove you obtained it legally. He or she wants to keep their license. The law then goes on to disallow any sales or purchase of any part what so ever of any protected species, unless said parts can be and are documented to have been obtained prior to the passing of such laws.

 

I seriously doubt you will be charged for having parts of a water foul that you YOURSELF harvested during the hunting season with a license. I also seriously doubt you will need to be concerned if you tie a fly FOR YOURSELF using the feathers from those birds. The laws exist to prevent poaching and to provide a means to stop poaching. However, you could be questioned if the right person finds out to assure you did not obtain those parts in a non-legal exchange.

 

The possession of the body parts of a raptor is strictly forbidden, end of statement. There are exceptions, few if any of us qualify.

 

The problem is, someone is going to want to know how and when you obtained them to be sure they were not taken by non legal means and were not exchanged for money or services. If you cannot prove you have them legally, it may be assumed you do not. Poaching is a serious problem and investigations are frequently undertaken from such conversations to find out if there are clues leading to poaching rings. If charges are pressed they will be a felony. Fly tyers are a large group so sales of poached materials has potential profit which thus means they are of interest.

 

Please, please do not discuss the possession of such parts on this forum. It places me in a paradox I would rather not be placed in. I am frequently involved in conversations with local game wardens and would rather not know such things.

 

Now we must realize that there are farm raised birds which come under intirely different sets of rules and I have zero knowledge how that works. Clearly if parts of these birds are investigated they will quickly lead back to the farm they were raised on and that will be the end of it if the paperwork, facts, and stories add up. We must assume the feathers we use and purchase come from such farms or foregn nations where it is legal, thus leaving the responsibility up to those in control of those matters to police them.

 

I am sure many of you have picked up parts of isolated naturally downed birds of many kinds and warmly tried their feathers in personal fly making. That is not poaching and an investigation would reveal the truth, but who wants to get investigated? I am sure you have the common sense to not bring up those special gifts of nature in public forums, nor sale parts, nor exchange parts for anything of value.

 

Thank you!

Now let's tie flys and fish.

[perchjerker 0]

poksal;

 

My precisely my points all along.

 

perchjerker

 

You have PM.

[Guest]

Ok guys I've made this argument before, Why freeze the feathers or for that matter skins of non-birds???? If they can survive some brutal winters in sub-zero and plus windchill temps why the heck would you think they'll knock them out by putting them in your freezer?????

 

You really want to make sure bugs are dead. Make sure you've cleaned the skins thouroly and that they're dry. Then (BUY YOUR OWN OR THE WIFE/GIRLFRIEND WILL HURT YOU) use a Food Saver Vacumn packer to pack the skin. I get the plastic cutting boards to put the skins on, then make a bag and put it in and pack it. Leave it for a few weeks and without air it will kill the bugs.

 

I've been doing this for a few years and I've had no bugs yet and don't plan on it. Even doing material swap box's, I put anything I take and put it through the cleaning cycle and it gets quarantined while it's in the vacumn pack. After they come out in the Zip lock bag with a piece of flea collar.

[perchjerker 0]

Fatman:

 

You are absolutely correct when you state that the 'host' animal survives extremey low winter temperatures, as do many of their external parasites (bugs). The point that is overlooked is the fact that it is the warmth of the host animals body that keeps the parasite alive under these extreme conditions. Once the animal is dead, and the carcass has gotten cold, many external 'bugs' will leave the hide in short order. or die from the cold.

 

The problem with following your procedure lies in the fact that not every hunter lives in an area where it ever gets as cold as you describe. Dozens, maybe even hundreds, of deer are killed every year here in Texas when it may be 90* F, or more, especially in deep South Texas. And the hunter may live in a part of the state that has very few days, if any, with temperatures below freezing during the winter.

 

Hope this provides some insight into what some of us have to contend with during our deer season.

 

I have personally ever frozen a green hide, as I get it stretched and salted down within in a matter of hours after the skin has been removed from the carcass. The salting has a tendency to eliminate any external vermin. They either get 'dehydrated' and become 'prunes', or they leave post haste after the salt application.

 

perchjerker

[Guest]

In an effort to calm down this thread I emailed the link of it to Environment Canada, and below is what I received from an Inspector:

 

Dear Mr. Palone,

 

Hawks, falcons and owls and not in the list of the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA). So, legally, they are protected by this Act. Those species are protected under Provincial Acts.

 

The Canadian citizen is right, under the province of Alberta law, you are able to get a permit for a bird you find dead for mounting and display purposes, but you do NOT become the owner of the bird - ownership is never transferred from the province, you are solely allowed to possess and display. There is a permit required and a fee must be paid in order to do this.

 

The provincial laws are different in each provinces so you have to check with each one before doing anything with dead birds you find.

 

However, for the migratory birds, the MBCA and is regulation are clear for the possession and the use of feathers:

 

 

Migratory Birds Regulations ( C.R.C. , c. 1035)

12.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a person may possess, purchase, sell, barter or transport the feathers of migratory game birds for the purpose of making fishing flies, bedding, clothing or other similar uses if the feathers so used were obtained under the authority of a valid migratory game bird hunting permit.

 

(2) No person shall purchase, sell, barter or offer to purchase, sell or barter the feathers of migratory birds for millinery or ornamental use.

 

You can find more information for the MBCA and it's regulations under:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/alef-ewe/default.asp?lang=en&n=3DF2F089-1

 

 

I hope this answer your question. Don't hesitate to contact me for more information.

 

Best regards,

 

Jean-François Dubois

Assistant coordonnateur national des inspections

Direction de l’application de la loi sur la faune

Direction générale de l'application de la loi

Environnement Canada

200, Boul. Sacré-Coeur, 13e étage

Gatineau (Québec) K1A 0H3

[email protected]

Téléphone 819-934-1250

Télécopieur 819-994-5836

Gouvernement du Canada

Site Web www.ec.gc.ca

 

 

1styearTyer, you posted "I have 18 Hawks/Falcons/Owls and songbeards taxidermied in the living room. Never had a problem with the officials with the birds on the way to the office". You pretty well infer that you had the birds with you when you went to get the permit, so in effect then according to Canadien law "The provincial laws are different in each provinces so you have to check with each one BEFORE doing anything with dead birds you find." In effect you broke the law taking them with you and should have been fined!!, and very lucky you didn't. Also, "I have", you should have stated "I Display", you DON'T own the birds (you might have paid for the taxidermy of them) but you don't own them, the province does. as the Inspector posted.

 

This topic always fuels arguments every time it comes up here and every other board I'm on. Hope it calms the tone of this thread.

 

Fatman

[perchjerker 0]

Fatman:

 

Thanks for the note, and I appreciate your taking on the role of arbitrator. However, you apparently did not pick up on the Inspectors contradictory comments in his first paragraph. He says, and I quote: "Hawks, falcons,and owls are not in the list of the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act(MBCA). So, legally, they are protected by this Act." (Emphasis added.) My question is: "Which is it?"

 

I further find his response puzzling as he is referring to a "TREATY" (MBCA in Canada) between at least six signatory countries, including Canada . In the US, the TREATY is referred to as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and owls, hawks and falcons are all definitely listed, based on the April 11, 2011 update of thelist of protected birds. (US Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Program, The migratory Bird Program-Conserving America's Birds, "List of Migratory Birds", which can be found at: www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/imbta/taxolost.html). It is usual and customary for the parties to a TREATY to agree on the language, even punctuation, of the TREATY, with no exceptions. I am curious as to how the Inspector explains this.

 

perchjerker

[Guest]

Perch,

 

Here ya go, he apologized for the confusion. He was trying to make it simple and to the point and forgot to delete part of it. Should be

 

Hawks, falcons and owls and not in the list of the 1994 Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA) (Which is for the US the MBTA, which many countries have agreed to). Under Canadien law those species are legally protected under Provincial Acts.

 

Which as they're written 1st should have gotten busted for it, but didn't. The rest of it is basically mirrors what we all go by.

 

Maybe they didn't want to agree with the raptor part as they didn't want the birds wasted, and who would they're awesome birds. I sort of agree with 1st on one thing, I wish the US would adopt the permit to pick up a dead bird so it could be used for display or use it for educational purposes without stressing a live bird. BUT I don't ever see it happening in the US. We already have to many that think it's fun to shoot them or some who consider them a nuisance to their property, so it would never work.

[perchjerker 0]

Fatman:

 

Although I fully accept what you have just said, I am still puzzled by the Canadians NOT including birds that the other signatories agreed to on their version (MBCA) of the MBTA just because they were already PROVINCIALLY protected. It just doesn't add up. The heart of the Treaty revolves around a list of birds to be protected by International Agreement (TREATY).

 

Oh well!

 

He may not be off the hook after all. One never knows who is also participating in fora such as this.

 

As a case in point. Some years ago, the largest gun distributor here in Texas held a party at his home. One of his invited guests called and asked if it would be possible to bring a long-time friend who was visiting at the time. The Host said it would be OK. This 'third party' thought he recognized an endangered species among the many mounts in the host's trophy room, and reported it to the US Fish and Wild Life Service, the responsible enforcement authority. After investigation, it was ultimately proven that it was an endangered species, and illegally taken. The man paid a very stiff fine, and lost his Federal Gun Dealers License. One never knows; and it is never too late!

 

perchjerker

[Guest]

Perch

 

I hear ya, but like you said Oh well. Best thing they could do is re-write it in PLAIN english so it was easy to figure out and search, but with the addition of State laws it mess's up things even more.

 

Really wish there was one set of rules so this argument stops coming up.

 

It's the same with fishing - we have this FW pond up the road from my house. On the POND side you can take 6 trout or 5 lbs whichever comes first. Easy Right???

 

NOPE, at the far end of the pond is a culvert pipe which goes under the road and connects the marshy area. Limit on the marsh side is 12 (which to me is really DUMB). People were getting busted left and right cause how do you prove you got them all the marsh side???

 

Catch 22, and stupid law was changed to match the marsh and pond. People were appealing the old fines they'd received and it was really a hugh mess, but finally got straighted out.

 

This one just happened here in Vermont http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2011110816003 the whole time I was seeing it and reading about it all I could say was BS!!!!!!!!!!! He thought it was a Brown Trout??? I don't think so!!!!

 

It's really a wonder we're not all in jail, with the confusion from the regs.

[perchjerker 0]

I agree. It is a sad state of affairs when the courts have trouble figuring the laws out! If they have trouble, how do the 'enforcers' expect we poor slobs to understand them?

 

My philosophy is to try to err on the "positive" side of the law. Especially when you could be looking at six figure fines and months to years as a ward of the state, or the Feds; the possible forfeiture of your vehicle and your 'equipment' you have with you at the time the offense is committed.

'Tain't worth it!

 

One really asinine regulation was the old "point" system related to duck hunting. The game wardens all carried thermometers so they could ascertain the sequence in which the ducks had been killed!

 

perchjerker