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: 1224719" data-attributes="member: 60675">That is a fair question.  These types of threads have made me wonder whether there ought to be an exception in the law for cases like this.  (Which is what I take your question to be driving at). But I think there are several problems with doing that.  First, I agree with Alex that it is generally better to encourage people to either let nature take its course or take injured birds to people who really know how to care for them -- because proper care can be quite complex, and improper care can create needless suffering.   Second, lots of people keep exotic birds as pets, and I am sure if it were permitted many would also keep native migratory birds as pets ("wow look at the beautiful blackburnian warbler in that cage!").  But I do not think the latter is something we want to encourage -- in fact it is just the kind of thing that could lead to widespread exploitation of our native migratory birds.  (Trapping them in the wild, etc.). It would also violate the principle behind the various international migratory bird treaties that migratory birds are not the property or exclusive resource of people in a particular country where they happen to be at that instant. But if you created an exception for people to temporarily care for a bird, anyone who wanted to keep a bird as a pet could simply claim that is what they were doing.  So it would make enforcement much more complex.  There are many cases in the law in which it is better from a public policy standpoint to draw a bright line, even though that line also includes some questionable cases.Best,Jim</blockquote>

Verification