Carrying feathers legally

[RB]

regarding the canadian border
my boyfriend and I went to SIFC powwow in Regina, we had no problems going through. He had his permit and tribal id but they didn't ask to see them. I suppose it just depends on who is the border patrol that day. Some of those people get mean :Cry

[grayback]

Yep. Anytime I am traveling with feathers or might end up traveling with feathers, I make sure I've got the repository permit (even if they might not match what the permit says), and my tribal enrollment card WITH me. Just seems easier to have them on hand than ever try to argue it with me in one place, and them a couple of states away. :)

[CamethystOwl]

I know nothing about the laws concerning carring feathers... just the basics of the eagle feathers, but I have a question for the people who posted about the owl feathers. I had never heard about laws concerning other birds of prey. My totem/spirit animal is the Owl and I am interested in making a wing fan from an owl. I have one in my posession ready to be made... Now I hear this may be illegal? Please help! Do I need to start finding a way to get a permit for my wing? :Help


Another question for anyone with an opinion... :( I'm debating the significance of making a fan out of the wing of my spirit animal. Does anyone out there feel this is wrong? I have been looking at it from many different perspectives... :Thinking At one point, I feel honored to have come across this artifact. (actually my mother happened to come across it and knew I would be honored to have the wing) Then in another aspect, I feel that this is the wing of a beautiful fallen bird. It should have been left with the owl. I sort of feel guilty for having it. It is one of my prized posessions... Please give me your feedback. :Cry

Till next time! :Wave

[Tom Iron Eagle]

I so much want to stress this again to all:

Regardless of your status please check the lists of endagered and or protected species for the Federal Level and your State Level. They are changing constantly. Since I saw this topic I went on line and checked the list for my state. Already there are several added animals since the last update in 2001. To the list are 4 new birds, 3 reptiles, 2 fish, a few mollusks and even some new plants and insects.

Don't forget that bird-of-prey animals are not the only ones to be concerned with. One of my friends from the previous post I spoke of got busted for blue jay and yellow-flicker feathers as they are both protected song birds in his state. No federal permit could help him with that as it is a totally different thing.

While the laws are very specific they can also be vague. As one person said there is no blanket coverage. And wildlife officers vary as to how they may enforce the law.

Be careful and by all means do some serious research and if possible get the permits.

[Blackbear]

Basically the only birds that are legal to buy sell or trade are starlings, pigeons (doves), chicken species (prairie, ptarmagin), sparrows and peacock and turkey. The rest are considered migratory, birds of prey , songbirds and scavengers. Geese and swans and ducks can be owned, but not bought, sold or traded or bartered (traded) but they have to be in the hunting season colors (I can't get to indepth here).

[grayback]

Since the Fish and Wildlife websites are still down because of the court restrictions, here are the addresses and phone numbers for the 7 regional migratory bird permit offices. If you are looking for information about these birds, or places for further information about protected species, try giving these folks a call. They cover Federal regulations only. Dig out your local phone book and look under the Government pages for the phone number of your State Fish and Wildlife service to get state regulations about various species.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Migratory Bird Permit Offices:

Region 1
MBHP/ARW
Eastside Federal Building
911. N.E. 11th Avenue
OREGON
(503) 872-2715

Region 2
P.B. Box 709
Albuquerque, NM 87103-0709
(505) 248-7883

Region 3
Bishop Henry Wipple Federal Building
1 Federal Drive, Box 45
Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-0045
(612) 713-5438

Region 4
P.O. Box 49208
Atlanta, GA 30359
(404) 679-7051

Region 5
P.O. Box 779
Hadley, MA 01035-0779
(413) 253-8641

Region 6
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, CO 80225
(303) 236-8171, ext. 616

Region 7
1011 E. Tutor Road, Room 155
Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 786-3311

Hope that helps some folks out there.

-grayback

[ogapahndn]

A member of this site sent me a pm and asked me a question about this topc. They didn't want to ask it themselves because they didn't want to get slammed by anyone. So, I will ask it for them! They are white but were adopted by a native family at birth. They have been raised following native traditions. During their life they have been gifted with eagle feathers from family members. They know what it means to have feathers. As I said they were raised learning these traditions. Their question is, after reading some of the comments on here they are wondering if they need permits or can even obtain them to carry their feathers. Anyone have any idea?

And HEY!!! Don't burn me! Don't kill the messenger! lol

[MWP]

As far as I know, no white person can possess eagle feathers, period. The only exception to this would be if the person has documentation that proves that the feathers were collected before the law went into effect or of the person is a falconer that can and does use eagles. It doesn't matter if you were given them by a Native person or if you call a Native person uncle/auntie or if you found them on your own land or whatever, whites just can't have them. Again, this is just the way it has been explained to me. I'm by no means an expert.
It raises an intersting question if the White person was legally adopted by a Native as a child. I don't know the answer there.

[musespirit]

:Cry It's really sad when people have to worry about getting "slammed", embarrased or the feeling of rejection just for asking a question. This is not good for anyones self-esteem.

[Kiwehnzii]

I don't think that anybody gets slammed for asking questions.

I believe it is a matter of giving false information to the readers.Those are the ones that deserve to be slammed.

I wouldn't slam anybody for asking.

[lngfthr]

It raises an intersting question if the White person was legally adopted by a Native as a child. I don't know the answer there.

The reason Native people are exempt from not owning feathers is because of sovereignty. Because we used feathers long before the laws were created, it was understood that we would continue to have that right. When we look at sovereignty, we have to remember that it is more of a political designation than a racial or ethnic one. So, it doesn't matter if a person is adopted legally. It matters if a person is enrolled (or, possibly, enrollable). Like I said earlier, I don't think an Indian possessing feathers without a permit is a type of legal case any lawyer would want to even take on and that's probably why the issue is so murky - kind of like state-tribal jurisdiction. JMIO...

[MWP]

Ingfthr,

Just because I want to understand what you are saying, could you clarify something? You said it's an issue of sovereignty, therefore, what matters is enrollment. Does that mean that a Native person who is not enrolled in a recognized tribe (even if they are or near a full blood), they cannot possess the feathers?

[Blackbear]

That is a good question!! I have wondered that myself.

[CamethystOwl]

Looks like I have some research ahead of me also... My tribe isn't federally recognized... we're only state so far. It's all one big mess. I am a member and have documentation. So does anyone know of those circumstances? Is it possible that I could even get these permits? :( People make something so simple very hard these days...

[lngfthr]

Well, I added the disclaimer "(or, possibly, enrollable)" because - like I said earlier - I don't know if there's been an actual case that's been tried. But, essentially, I think a person who is at least enrollable would likely "pass the test" and be allowed to own feathers but a person who is not enrolled or enrollable anywhere (no matter how much blood he or she actually has) would be considered just as "non-Native" as a white person. Like I said, sovereignty is based on a political affiliation, not a racial or ethnic one. I'm guessing it's similar to the protection of the Indian Child Welfare Act, which wouldn't apply to a child who is not enrollable in any tribe (no matter the amount of actual Indian blood). Again, just my opinion based on my understanding of the issues.