next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Randy Lauff wrote:
> Interesting that someone would be charged for the possession of a dead
> Gannet...I wonder what they were going to do with it. I'm glad the
> enforcement folks are taking this seriously though.
>
Hi Randy & All, June 6, 2007
Having dead birds in one's freezer if like having flies in one's soup.
If word leaks out that someone has a fly in their soup, or a rotten
Gannet in their freezer, then everyone might want one and where would
this end ? Probably something like 10 million live Gannets and 999,999
Gannet corpses in the vicinity of the roost, as opposed to 10 million
live and one million corpses, if this important law were rigidly enforced.
If memory serves, the public has been asked in previous years to
deliver or send suspected victims (birds) of West Nile Virus to DNR. If
so, then the public has been drawn into a conspiracy to commit crime.
And this would have been done under the authority of some Minister, e.g.
the Minister for Resurrection of Mumps, which would mean that the
Minister would also be an accomplice.
There are recent reports of dead Gulls floating around so brace for
another crime wave.
Yt, DW, Kentville
>
>
> However, it has always been my experience that "letter of the law" and
> "meaning of the law" in this case can be radically different. If
> someone finds a window-killed bird, the letter of the law says they
> cannot pick it up. I suspect no authority would charge you for picking
> it up with the intention of disposing of it. A lot of people keep
> window kill for me (and perhaps other curators as well), and if
> enforcement officers happen to find "the stash", a simple call to me
> would confirm the intent, which I believe is of utmost importance in
> prosecution. So, this means if you are keeping a condor/cod/cougar in
> your freezers for a recognized collection, let the curator know that
> you've got it.
>
>
>
> And for those that do do this...thank you. Future artists, authors,
> historians, law enforcement folk and yes, even biologists, will be
> able to be inspired or educated by your contribution.
>
>
>
> Randy
>
> St. Francis Xavier University, Biology
>
>
>
> On 05/06/07, Tom Kavanaugh <terri.crane@ns.sympatico.ca
> <mailto:terri.crane@ns.sympatico.ca> > wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Terri Crane <mailto:terri.crane@ns.sympatico.ca>
>
> To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca <mailto:naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:12 PM
>
> Subject: Fw: please spell check
>
>
>
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:04:48 -0300
>
>
>
> Hi Dorthy and all.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that the posession of any wildlife requires
> obtaining a special permit. Randy, Andrew, and other
> organizations reps have a Blanket permit wich alows them to
> colect, obtain, and retain speciments for studies/colections.
> By law your not even alowed to posess a "non harvestable
> wildlife species" for any period of time without the proper
> papers. This also gos for some "harvestable wildlife" (deer,
> moose.....) outside the permiters of time as stated on the
> harvesting permits.
>
>
>
> Remember the laws for the protection of wildlife (species at
> risk, whales, birds of prey, song birds........) while they're
> alive, still protects them after their death.
>
>
>
> Complacency seems to be the way but I've seen it from the
> other side also being present while a freind was charged for
> possesion of a non harvisitable species ( a Northern Gannet
> that washed ashore).
>
>
>
> Ignorance is not a defence and the consaquences can be harsh.
>
>
>
> Tom K
>
> Canso
>
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects