mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser) (03/20/90)
In article <1143@urbana.mcd.mot.com>, hapke@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Warren Hapke) writes: > In article <1990Mar6.202736.12932@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> rcb33483@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Kehaar) writes: > > One of the catalogs loudly announces "It's now legal to shoot crows!" under > > it's corvid decoy line. I thought this true until > >I looked up the law. What is suggested by this is quite disturbing--that > >at least some hunting organizations may think they are above the law. > > I think there are some misunderstandings here. Game laws generally recognize > two classes of birds: protected and unprotected. Unprotected birds are > considered pest species and may be killed at any time. Generally, only > rock doves, starlings, and a few other "nuisance species" are unprotected. Rock Doves and Starlings are "unprotected" because they are not native species. All native species are "protected" under the treaty. What many people seem to misunderstand is that the protection afforded these birds is not unconditional. Any "protected" bird may be taken if the proper license or permit has been acquired. The people requesting permission to take birds may vary widely: from hunters taking game/pest birds, to scientists taking specimens for a valid ornithological study, to fish farmers taking fish-eating birds for protection of their investment. Also, much of the licensing authority has been vested in the Fish and Game Commission of the various states, which would explain why permission to take a particular bird species can vary from one state to another. I'm not sure to what extent the state's authority ranges. Perhaps the Feds classify game and pest species and then allow each state to control them as they see fit. I believe that permission to take endangered species is completely under the control of the Feds. Mike