BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jim M." data-source="post: 1699192" data-attributes="member: 60675">I don't think we've been addressing what the law ought to be--we've been addressing what the law is and how government agencies, who enforce the law, interpret it.  (What the law ought to be is a more complex question.) What many here are not focusing on is that this is a law different from most of the criminal statutes we are familiar with.  It's a strict liability law.  That means you can violate it regardless of whether you intended to.  Other strict liability laws are those against statutory rape--even if an adult reasonably believes someone is of the age of consent and means no harm, the adult can be sent to jail for having relations with a minor.  Contrast that with burglary, for example--you can't unintentionally burglarize someone's home because if it's not intentional it's not burglary.That said, I agree prosecution in cases like this is unlikely, and wouldn't chastise people for protecting birds in unusual circumstances (though I'm more in the let nature take its course camp), but I think it's appropriate to make them aware of the legal issues--if nothing else to guard against any temptation to keep the bird as a pet, which I know some people try to do, especially with fledglings.Best,Jim</blockquote>