Did Jane Goodall violate Federal law?

In this clip from the 10-12-2007 meeting of the CA Fish and Game Commission, Cindy Margulis of the Oakland Zoo shows a picture of Jane Goodall holding a condor feather. Condor feather, like all raptor feathers, are illegal to possess in the US. (Unless you're an Indian.) Ms. Margulis also tips the greenies hand in that they really want a statewide ban on lead ammo. And to top this off, she uses the ol' do-it-for-the-children approach.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• condors
• ammunition
• ammo
• lead

[nytransplnt]

SFValleyNRA,

Accusing Dr. Jane Goodall of holding a condor feather "like a souvenir", while promoting the conservation of these very birds is truly silly. How about an educational tool? Yes? Isn't this bit of fuss really about petty jealousy toward the great Dr. Goodall's renowned success? I couldn't help but notice, her detractor in the video is not exactly a household name. You heard the gentleman responding to Margulis' complaint, "Well did she shoot it?!" Even the commissioner was amused!

[SFValleyNRA]

The fact remains that if you or I were caught with a raptor feather, we'd be on our way to a Federal penitentiary.

[devyngod]

Why does it matter she is a nice person and why are u even showing this. Lock her up in jail or make her pay money thats not gonna help anything. And i know that she would never do anything on purpose to get try and hert the animals and she didnt kill it so who cares its just a feathers from an already dead animal.

[SFValleyNRA]

"Nice" doesn't matter. If you or I waved a raptor feather around, we mere mortals would go to jail.

[ushdfgakjasgh]

federal law or not, we've really reached a sad place if jane goodall is being prosecuted under a law enacted to protect wildlife

what an inane point...if the law is that open to interpretation, it's obviously a poorly designed law

[jimeagle1]

Taking a 'souvenir' would not qualify. Using a molted feather as an object with which to promote conservation and further efforts to save this species, on the other hand, certainly qualifies under the spirit of this law.

[SFValleyNRA]

So then, the taking of souvenirs qualifies as "scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species"? That's a rather interesting interpretation.

[btugwell]

TITLE 16 > CHAPTER 35 > § 1539

§ 1539. Exceptions (a) Permits

(1) The Secretary may permit, under such terms and conditions as he shall prescribe—

(A) any act otherwise prohibited by section 1538 of this title for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, including, but not limited to, acts necessary for the establishment and maintenance of experimental populations pursuant to subsection (j) of this section; or

[SFValleyNRA]

Could you please point the section in the law that provides that exemption? I looked and I couldn't find it.

[btugwell]

Scientists and researchers working with these birds for purposes of conservation and recovery are generally exempted by this ruling - or possessing the birds themselves for recovery breeding programs would be illegal. Obviously thats not the case. The idea of the statute is not to stop researchers and conservationists from doing their jobs, it is to stop the illegal killing of these birds for trophies.