Filming Crows Illegal?

xris

My weird fact for 2008: :scratch

While watching some of the additional material on the "Six Feet Under" (Season 1) disk the other day, I heard the show's producer state something along the lines of "it is illegal to film a real crow for commercial purposes in the U.S.":dunno

So I did a bit of digging. Seems it's TRUE! Something to do with the [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Migratory Bird Treaty Act[/FONT].

The fourth response down in this link appears to provide the answer.

Shooting Crows

Would this also apply to shooting stills of migratory birds?

If so, will any stock license have to limit use of such photo's to educational purposes?

Yet another can o' worms?:huh

Any comments?
:thumb

Richard

xris wrote:

My weird fact for 2008:

While watching some of the additional material on the "Six Feet Under" (Season 1) disk the other day, I heard the show's producer state something along the lines of "it is illegal to film a real crow for commercial purposes in the U.S."

So I did a bit of digging. Seems it's TRUE! Something to do with the [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Migratory Bird Treaty Act[/FONT].

The fourth response down in this link appears to provide the answer.

Shooting Crows

Would this also apply to shooting stills of migratory birds?

If so, will any stock license have to limit use of such photo's to educational purposes?

Yet another can o' worms?

Any comments?

If you read the whole thread, I think the point is that you cannot use captive migratory birds for commercial purposes. This does not have anything to do with shooting pics of birds in the wild.

xris

Richard wrote:

If you read the whole thread, I think the point is that you cannot use captive migratory birds for commercial purposes. This does not have anything to do with shooting pics of birds in the wild.

Thanks Richard, I see I need to be more explicit.

Rest assured I did read the entire thread, and several others, before posting. You have a point, but I still fail to find anything that specifies 'captive' birds. The suggestion does make sense, but several others suggest otherwise.

One thread (experts on Wildlife) says: "The best answer I can come up with is that permission to film is required (for commercial purposes) from US Fish and Wildlife Service OR from the managing agency if filming occurs on Federal or State Lands."

Others seem to lean toward a 'no commercial use' angle. In some readings it seems the legislation is trying, in part, to reduce any disturbances of the birds in their wild environment by anyone doing information gathering (this, presumably, includes film-makers and photographers).

Then there's this from (link): "...Biologist's careers have been ruined because they didn't comply with the law. Even if you are doing something as seemingly innocuous as photographically monitoring a bird's nest, you may need a permit..."

And if you read through the actual regulation, you'll note that 'any type of information gathering' specifically requires a permit. Photographing can easily be called 'information gathering.'

There appear to be a large number of pro wildlife photographers the monitor DG and use SM, so I figured they may find this interesting and have some other input.

May be nothing. Agreed. I still think it begs clarification.

vintagemxr

And just to confuse things further
And just to confuse things further, hunting crows is legal in many states including Arizona. There are many restrictions, of course, but it is legal per the AZ Dept. of Fish and Game website (I just checked).

Goodness knows I've "eaten crow" more than once in my life but only metaphorically. I don't believe I'd feel a great need to shoot one at all unless one shot at me first.

Doug


Ref:

http://www.azgfd.gov/eservices/documents/AZFallRegs06-07_002.pdf

dogwood

xris wrote:

In some readings it seems the legislation is trying, in part, to reduce any disturbances of the birds in their wild environment by anyone doing information gathering (this, presumably, includes film-makers and photographers).

So crows are not native to the western USA (they migrated from the east coast as the population spread east to west).

They live here now, of course. But would that be considered their wild environment since they've pretty much only been here as long as the European settlers?

davidweaver

Richard wrote:

If you read the whole thread, I think the point is that you cannot use captive migratory birds for commercial purposes. This does not have anything to do with shooting pics of birds in the wild.

...Quote the raven, nevermore.

Cygnus Studios

There are several laws concerning migratory birds. Most involve disturbing the nest or nesting areas.
But just in case.......

xris

Cygnus Studios wrote:

There are several laws concerning migratory birds. Most involve disturbing the nest or nesting areas.
But just in case.......

Okay. Now you went an done it! Now you'll have to where sun glasses, fedora and trench coat and spend the rest of your days running from the feds!!!:gun2