The point of the law is, as Paul has stated, to be able to prosecute people
illegally catching or killing birds. To leave out the holding of a feather
would create a loophole that could allow a suspect to escape on a
technicality. A feather may be a critical factor in proving that a crime
was committed.
Wildlife rangers/law enforcement officers are most unlikely to prosecute
someone for the possession of feathers that were casually picked up on the
ground or from caged birds. Technically it is illegal to have these
feathers but unless the officer suspects a person to be harming or catching
birds prosecution would be futile. The case cited of a ranger threatening
people for looking at a dead snake seem extraordinary, and if true, would be
a gross over reaction on the ranger's part.
I know of no cases where people have been prosecuted for holding feathers
that they have found.
So, I think that people are over-reacting to a law that is there to help
protect our wild birds but isn't intended to catch innocent birdlovers who
have picked up some moulted feathers.
Greg Clancy
|
