Anchorage Law Firm - Ross & Miner

Published Articles

FROM THE ARENA
Column for the Anchorage Times October 7, 1990
by Wayne Anthony Ross

Several years ago, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service sent a letter to a man on the Kenai Peninsula. The letter mentioned that the man had been supporting himself by selling moose antlers which he had picked up on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wished to inform the Kenai resident that the U.S. Code prohibited the removal of any public property, "including natural objects" from a National Wildlife Refuge. The letter implied that the U.S. Government would initiate criminal prosecution if the Kenai resident continued removing and selling antlers from the Refuge.

A friend of mine brought the Fish and Wildlife's letter to my attention, and I couldn't resist getting involved. As a result, I sent a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service. In part, my letter read as follows:

"I do not know how long you have been involved with the Fish and Wildlife Service or whether you spend any time out in the woods away from your desk, but it has always been my experience that moose horns that are shed, deteriorate rapidly and within six months are fully deteriorated. Are you saying that it is the position of the Fish and Wildlife Service that the Fish and Wildlife Service would prefer to have discarded moose horns rot in the woods rather than let someone make use of them? Certainly air above the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge is public property. Under your interpretation, one should not, therefore, breathe in the Refuge lest one take and remove air therefrom. Ditto for drinking water from the streams without processing that water before leaving the Refuge? I've got a client who makes moose nugget jewelry out of moose droppings which she finds on the Kenai Wildlife Refuge. Seems to me that if you go after one person for picking up antlers (which were dropped from the front of the moose), you may have to go after my client for picking up moose nuggets (which were dropped from the rear of the moose). Won't that be a fun case? Then we would see how much of a mountain the Fish and Wildlife Service would like to make out of a molehill of moose manure. I say that if the moose lost it, its' Finders Keepers!"

I never got a reply to my letter, and, to my knowledge, neither the man from Kenai nor my client ever heard from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again about the issue.

Last month, the papers contained several articles about Charlie Kairaluak, a premier Yupik Eskimo carver. Mr. Kairaluak had carved a Yupik mask which was on display at a local store. The mask incorporated raven feathers into its design.

According to the store's owner, in his masks Mr. Kairaluak "tries to show the strong spirituality of his Yupik people, and the traditional bond that exists among the land, the animals, the spirit world and himself."

Mr. Kairaluak stated that "The raven feathers become spirit feathers when they are used on masks. Our people believe each bird has certain powers carried within the feather, so we try to match the feathers to the spirit mask that has similar powers. There is a spiritual connection between the mask and the feathers."

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Fish and: Wildlife saw Mr. Kairaluak's mask and seized the feathers from it. Apparently ravens, although not an endangered species, are a protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty. Thus, no part or product of them can be sold.

Mr. Kairaluak was, of course, quite upset.

When I heard about the seizure, I immediately thought about my, letter concerning the moose antlers and moose nuggets. Was the Fish and Wildlife Service again trying to make another legal mountain, this time out of a molehill of raven feathers?

Subsequent newspaper articles indicated, however, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does have a heart. They later returned Mr. Kairaluak's raven feathers to him, after issuing a permit to him which allowed him to keep the feathers.

Upon reflection, I have to give the Fish and Wildlife officers credit in their handling of this matter. These officials are charged with enforcing laws which are designed to prevent people from killing protected animals, and, indeed, removing public property from Wildlife Refuges. If such laws did not exist, animals could be hunted to extinction, and Wildlife Refuges could be plundered. The fact that we still have ravens, eagles, egrets, and other such birds to enjoy, despite the desirability of their feathers, shows that the Law works. Ditto for the laws regarding Wildlife Refuges.

In issuing a permit for Mr. Kairaluak, the Fish and Wildlife showed good sense. We have laws prohibiting gambling, and yet, no agency gets overly excited about prosecuting the penny ante poker games that millions of Americans enjoy playing. Instead, law enforcement officials realize that these laws were intended to be applied to big time, organized, gambling operations. The same sort of enforcement should be undertaken when it comes to raven feathers, moose antlers, and moose nuggets. It does no harm to ravens when Mr. Kairaluak used a few feathers that a friend had found and gave to him. It does no harm to Wildlife Refuges that someone picks up moose antlers now and then and makes use of them. And it would appear that in the handling of Mr. Kairaluak's case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recognized this and acted accordingly. Maybe there is hope for that Agency yet.