The US House passed HR 3109 unanimously on Monday. The bill is intended to address the sale of Alaska Native artwork containing non-edible migratory bird parts and prevents future incidents involving the sale of Alaska Native handicrafts.
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, bird feathers were considered incredibly fashionable. Every kind of bird you could think of from bluebirds, woodpeckers, orioles, blue jays to owls and prairie hens. However, the popularity of these feathers was endangering the species continuation. In 1918 a treaty was signed between the US and Great Britain, who was acting on behalf of Canada. The Migratory Bird Act prohibits the sale of items containing feathers and other non-edible migratory bird parts.
This week the US House passed a bill that changes that. Congressman Don Young proposed the legislation because, as he said to Congress, he believes the Migratory Bird Act should be amended.
“Mr. Speaker since 1918 the United States has signed four migratory bird treaties with Canada, Mexico, Japan, Russia, and in 1997 the Canadian and Mexican treaties were revised to allow Alaska Natives to harvest for subsistence use protected migratory birds during the so called closed season. Unfortunately, when implementing the treaty language, Congress failed to clarify that the non-edible parts of the harvest migratory bird could be sold in commercial products. As a result what we have today is a bizarre policy that allows Alaska Natives to hunt, kill, consume and also use non-edible parts in handicraft items but prohibits them from selling these handicrafts.”
Young’s legislation comes at the request of several Alaska Native organizations including the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Sealaska Heritage Institute. These organizations banded together after an Alaska Native artist was cited by US Fish and Wildlife for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The artist sold traditional native artwork that included certain bird feathers and was eventually fined over $2,000.
Young says this was a part of the treaty that was either ignored or just not enforced.
“Mr. Speaker the Fish and Wildlife Service could have revised their regulations, they could have worked with the Alaska Migratory Bird Council and they could have continued to utilize their law enforcement discretion. In each case they chose not to.”
The new bill changes the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow the possession, selling, bartering, purchasing, shipping and transporting of any authentic Alaskan native handicraft or clothing that contains a nonedible migratory bird part.