Eagle Feather

I mentioned earlier that I have a cowboy hat that I wear when I mow my lawn.

There's an area here in Georgia (The Piedmont) where some Bald Eagles hang out. I was thinking it would be cool to have an eagle feather to put in my hat.

While researching the best place to get one, I found out it's illegal to own one. I wasn't going to grab an eagle by the neck and pull a feather out of its butt or anything. I was going to look for one on the ground. But, noooo. The only people who can own one are American Indians, but they have to apply for a permit first.

Does anyone know the spirit of this law? What bad thing happens if someone picks one up off the ground? Why can't an American own a feather from the symbol of America, as long as he doesn't kill an eagle to get it, of course?

If I want an eagle feather, my only choice is to buy a hand painted turkey feather that looks like an eagle feather. No thanks.

quote:

The only people who can own one are American Indians, but they have to apply for a permit first.

i think it has symbolic or religious (if they got one) reason for them.

seems that in US, if religion is discussed, they always respect your opinion.

here in china, they will put you to jail, but chopstick between your fingers and press it, then they will beat the living daylights out of your eyes. ( i might go to jail writing this)

Yes, it has religous meaning to American Indians. But that still doesn't explain why I can't own one, or why an Indian needs to get a permit to own one.

What I've found out is that in America, you can't pick up or own a feather of any migratory bird. The Bald Eagle is migratory. I think I broke that law many times when I was a kid. Northern Utah is a skipping point for many migratory birds and I remember picking up lots of feathers over the years.

The best reason I can find for this ban is that there's a fear that wholesale slaughter of migratory birds will develop if people pick up their feathers off the ground and make owning them popular. There's concern that a black market for feathers will develop which would lead to killing of live birds just to get their feathers.

Nobody cares about a turkey, though, unless it's Thankgiving Day. Well, except for Ben Franklin... but that was a long time ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

or why an Indian needs to get a permit to own one.

Reasons?

To collect a tax. Always a good idea.

To give free data (habitat, etc.) to some government scientist.

To exercise control over you and me (we need permission from experts for everything).

And, the over reaching idea that if someone has a feather, then maybe they could get more and sell them, which may promote killing the birds to make "collecting" them easier.

Typical government protection thinking IMHO.

I have no problem protecting the national bird, especially since it's endangered. Who can do that better than the government? If they weren't protected they'd be extinct. I guess not everyone cares?

I don't think the purpose of the permit is to collect a tax. If that were the case, they'd make more money by allowing anyone to pay for a permit and charging more than just a nomimal processing fee.

I already mentioned the black market potential, which is the overriding reason that ownership is illegal, except for American Indians with a permit. Again, the ban is for all migratory bird feathers, so this isn't a Bald Eagle-specific law. That is, American Indians can't apply for permit to own feathers from all migratory birds, just Bald Eagles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut

I have no problem protecting the national bird, especially since it's endangered. Who can do that better than the government? If they weren't protected they'd be extinct. I guess not everyone cares?

I CARE! a great deal. My point is that the government collects a tax for everything in the name of make work, public supported jobs in general. It is too bad that people can't be self policing with regard to protection of wild life. I would never kill something for a trophy. But, that is me. If I found a dead eagle on the side of the road (possible around here), I would collect it and report it to fish and game. If a feather falls off the carcus, should I be beaten down financially? I'll hide it and send it to you though.

We can't police ourselves on something like this. Maybe you can and I can, but as a society we can't. Self-policing proved that we need to protect them. The government isn't in the business of making a profit on programs like this. True, they need to make a profit to pay for the program, but the profit isn't going into someone's pocket to buy a yacht or a mansion or to pay for gambling vacations. Like I said, the government is best able to do this and can do it for much cheaper because there's already an infrastructure to fold it into. Someone's got to do it, I believe.

heard last week that the bald eagle has made such a good come back that they are thinking of taking it off the endangered list,

Well, that's good to hear. We still won't be able to legally own a feather from one, though.

pretty much,fine with me i have some nesting about 5 miles from my place and it's awesome to see em flying around in the river valley in front of my house.

So, we agree.

I think so, in principle. Perhaps we disagree on the impetus behind these (particular) laws? You think it's the demon government wanting to over tax, aggravate, and control its citizens and I think it's just that they want to save the birds from extinction.

Hum...

Really, I think bureaucracies LOOK for ways to increase their reason to exist. Some programs are noble, some are not. Saving wild life from harm is a noble cause. Flying to the Moon and Mars is not (IMHO). I have become very cynical with taxation and government services. Too much control and regulation is the norm. Have you noticed that government programs are NEVER successful enough to complete their missions? Even in the face of public resentment, programs are never ended, just modified to save the work force they create and support.

It may be wishful thinking as I believe education is the problem with most behavior issues, including the treatment of animals, and our inability to care for ourselves as independent citizens. Our government controls what our kids learn and then trains them to depend on government rather than teaching them to be full fledged Citizens.

A few of us escape through ambition, to be self sufficient and support the rest. Most government jobs were created to align to some noble cause and have evolved into a well fair system for many of the worker. If you are the worker, your job is to first keep the bureaucracy going and second to serve the mission. Or? Just show up and do your time waiting for a premium pension. Like I said, I am cynical. It is because that is what I see.

I'm not quite so cynical as you. I'm too tired to form a list right now, but there are programs that have been successful and those that have ended and those that have provided benefits to us all. You sound like you've had too much coffee. Using words like "NEVER" and blaming the poor individual workers trying to get ahead for all of the country's ills makes you sound jealous.

Do bureaucracies spontaneously appear or expand because a wage earner who is sitting on a "premium pension" wishes it to be so? Can it? What is the scenario? "They" gather in a secret dark room under a granite government building and plot the expansion of the government for the sole purpose of annoying the most people possible? Don't be silly.

There aren't as many people running this country, its government, as you would have us believe--certainly not the lowly workers earning a pension. The government, in terms of its workers, are at the whim of the congress and the administration. This reminds me of the rant that blames IRS workers for taxes when it's the congress that enacts the laws that result in taxes. All the craziness in the tax system and tax code is the congress' fault, not the IRS'. It may surprise you to learn that even the heavy-handed tactics they use are the result of demands from congress to aggressively collect taxes. After all, the congress spend our tax dollars, so they'll do anything to prevent the flow from stopping.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lugnut



Do bureaucracies spontaneously appear or expand because a wage earner who is sitting on a "premium pension" wishes it to be so? Can it? What is the scenario? "They" gather in a secret dark room under a granite government building and plot the expansion of the government for the sole purpose of annoying the most people possible? Don't be silly.

Way too simple and denotes some sort of conspiracy by groups of workers. I don't think so. It is the hand of taxation laws that creates the power to create programs. I can't think of any major social program that has ended.

Congress's actions create the systems to solve problems or pander to load mouth groups. I don't get hung up on individuals. It isn't the workers I am complaining about, they are part of a self preserving system that in many cases is quite necessary, like our military. Pensioners are out of the systems, but are the constituency as a voting block and are taxed. So, I grant them there due and what they earn.

I don't lay awake at night wondering about plots. government programs are open and notorious, as they should be. It is why they are in perpetuity, and how they get there, that interests and concerns me.

quote:

Way too simple and denotes some sort of conspiracy by groups of workers.

I was trying to paint the picture you were describing. You said these workers were expanding and perpetuating government programs. The truth is that they can't. They just do what they're told. Put it up or take it down. It's not their decision. Therefore, there must be backroom conspiracies. It's the only explanation available.

quote:

Congress's actions create the systems to solve problems or pander to load mouth groups.

Good. Like I said, congress is where your beef should lie.

quote:

I don't get hung up on individuals.

You must. You must be speaking of individuals because not ALL government employees are the mindless, evil do-badders that you say they are. You're a bitter anti-government extremist, no doubt overburdened by self-employment regulations. You probably deserve to vent.

I guess extreme views don't set well with me. It doesn't matter which side of the fence it comes from. I can't take you seriously because you think in absolutes. It's okay, though. I have a lot of friends that think the same way. It's hard not to think that way when you feel strongly about something.

I must be sounding like an a-hole or something. I see most political issues in black and white, while most of my friends see colors. I need a vacation. Some place warm.

"a-hole?" No. Not confused in your beliefs and positions? Yes. A person's position is weak if someone can just push him off of it.

This is just one example, but my wife worked for the fed in a semi-policy position. She and her co-workers never made a move without first and foremost considering the impact to individual groups, or even at times individuals. Can you believe modifications to improve some government programs overall were nixed because they feared some mom&pop businesses wouldn't have access to a typewriter or PC and they refused to burden them with a requirement to use one? It's stuff like that that most of us don't see. Again, it's just one example. There are people in the government who look out for you.

My interactions with government are usually at a local level. My city counsel, building codes inspectors, tax assessors, law enforcement, local utility regulators, etc. They have usually been neighbors and just go to work every day and do there thing. Many times I feel like I am in a nanny state, with too much regulation and over site by people using codes rather than professional knowledge to execute law enforcement.

A good example is our friend who gets a speeding ticket for traveling 5% over the posted speed. The law is designed to regulate safe traveling. The conditions may warrant safe traveling at higher speeds, but the judicial system may not consider this and issues punitive damages anyway, even with evidence presented to the contrary. So, while the police officer is doing his job, the system is appearing to just collect revenue without accomplishing public safety; which is the intent of the law.

If you find a feather in your lawn, you are not damaging a bird or their habitat. I guess it becomes like finding money or illegal drugs in your lawn. You are compelled to surrender it to the government so it can sit of some shelf somewhere or tempt corruption.

How do we reconcile this?

If i find money it is mine.

Indeed.

I'm not being a cry baby. I can see your ports, as dumb ass as they are.

They pulled us off topic. At least they are playing along. Good human behavior discussion though.

Nah. I doubt the law is enforced in a way that I would get nailed by picking one up off my lawn. How would the jackboots even know I had one? Some Nazi-wannabe kid in my neighborhood, I guess?

I would probably get a warning, possibly a stiff one, if I put one in my hat and wore it into a National Park Service building. If I picked up a whole bunch of them and tried to sell them, then I'd get nailed if the NPS got wind of it. They can't be actively looking for people with feathers.

Perhaps you could tell them your full name is Chief Lugnut, the lost leader of the wheel retention tribes. Just think, there is propably a government aid program you would qualify for.