Javas legal in my state! YAY! But can't find any. BOO!

[Sojourner]

After lots of running around and being forwarded from one Ag Dept employee to another to another to another, none of whom had a clue, I finally found someone who could definitively tell me whether Javas are legal here.

Part of the issue is the law here regarding what birds you do and do not need permits for only lists under "do not require a permit" the following for finches:

"Non-indigenous house finches are allowed".

Problem being house finches are a specific breed that is not generally kept in the USA - probably because they are INDIGENOUS house finches.

If you take that literally, and probably if anyone challenged it legally, and unless there is somewhere buried in another law somewhere a definition of "non-indigenous house finches" (which doesn't seem to be the case) then it would be illegal to keep any finches in this state. Because no finches are listed under "allowed with a permit".

So badly worded language in the law aside, I found someone in the Ag Dept who went the opposite direction and looked up only birds that are Specifically Not Allowed, one of which was Starlings, another was some kind of Rosella and I couldn't get the third one (stupid garbledy cell phone) - but the good news is that whatever it was, it was no kind of finch.

Therefore - all nonindigenous finches are allowed, including Javas.

Unfortunately this is a pretty sparsely populated state and in 2 years of searching I have yet to find anyone who keeps or breeds them.

If I post my postal address, can I expect to find anonymously donated Javas in my mailbox any day now? LOL! I wish!

[katie]

LOL. what state ? most US finches are wild. not able to be kept. indigenous , well... meaning from your area. I think you are taking it a bit too literal. I have a lot of African finches, not indigenous to Florida. legal to keep. you will be fine.

[Sojourner]

katie

Yeah, but the fact is that the way that is worded it literally identifies only non-indigenous HOUSE finches as being allowed to be kept without a permit.

So if there is something called a "house finch" in France or China or Yugoslavia I could keep those, but not a US native house finch.

LITERALLY read that makes societies, zebras, gouldians, owls, etc etc etc not legal.

However the state legislature here does not pay the legislators so only crazy people want the jobs. Thus we get a lot of kooks in the legislature who pass crazy laws - such as outlawing all water soluble livestock antibiotics so now a chicken farmer (or pet bird owner) can only go to a vet to get meds. And passing a sales tax to support schools here (we have the highest dropout rate and lowest graduation rate in the US). And generally not passing any law that might protect the general population's health or well-being, and catering to mining, gambling, and prostitution interests. NOT, mind you, in the best interests of the prostitutes themselves, but in the best interests of the BROTHEL OWNERS.

So most likely the wording is just plain ignorant. They didn't REALLY mean to outlaw pet finches. But when read literally - as laws are wont to be read - that's what the actually did.

I AM taking it literally because that's the only way you CAN take laws. They are literal, always. I forget where it was, but the legislature of some state awhile ago accidentally legalized all marijuana. As I recall that only lasted a few days or weeks, but due to bad wording, marijuana was totally legal for awhile until someone realized what had happened. Then they had to pass an amendment to fix it.

Thankfully no one is likely to push it, but as written, none of our pet finches are currently legal in this state - not by intent, but by accident. They probably meant "finches that live in people's houses" as shorthand for all the breeds of pet finches. LOL!

[Sojourner]

I went and looked it up and here are a couple of things that were accidentally legalized because of poor wording or poor editing (such as removing an entire section of a law instead of just changing the poor wording):

In Rhode Island, prostitution was completely legal between 1980 and 2003. Not streetwalking or pimping, but the actual act of paying for sex or accepting money for sex was legal due to accidentally removing the language that made it illegal. As long as you didn't walk the streets or work for a pimp, you could take money for sex. The advent of the Internet meant they could legally advertise on the Internet and thus didn't have to walk the streets. RI finally got around to fixing that in 2003. 23 years later.

Ireland accidentally legalized a whole bunch of different drugs in 2015. But it only lasted for a few days.

In DC - not sure exactly when this was as none of the articles I checked out were dated - the city had passed a law decriminalizing marijuana. Some a**es in Congress didn't like that, so they tried to pass a bill (were planning to) that would have defunded any attempts to enforce decriminalization. However because the Congressional bill (if it ever passed) would have gone into effect AFTER decriminalization did, it would instead have made it impossible for the city to issue citations for marijuana AT ALL. It was a really complicated timing AND wording issue.

I think Ireland is actually the incident I was originally thinking of. Things like this happen all the time and are in effect for anywhere from a few days to (in the case of prostitution in RI) DECADES.

Laws are always interpreted literally. That's what laws are all about. You can't come along later and say "well we MEANT to do x even though the law SAYS y". If that is the case, you have to rewrite the law so it actually says y before you can enforce y.

[katie]

ok

[Icearstorm]

Sojourner
If I remember correctly, laws regarding specific species or genera tend to have parenthetical scientific names, so the law would appear to say "Non-indigenous house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus) are legal." There are house finches that are non-indigenous to the United States, as this species is also present in Mexico; however, owning one would be illegal due to the international Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. In this way, your state law contradicts federal and international law if interpreted literally; the state is breaking the law and could have federal funding reduced. I doubt federal involvement would take place, though, as this seems rather nitpicky.

[Sojourner]

Icearstorm

Yeah, except they didn't identify species names most of the time. Sometimes they did, but sometimes not.

The exact wording is here:

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exotic_ ... e.php?s=nv

The particular section of interest reads as follows:

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4 and NAC 503.500 to 503.535, inclusive, the following animals may be possessed, transported, imported and exported without a permit or license issued by the division:

(a) Canaries;

(b) Toucans;

(c) Lovebirds;

(d) Nonindigenous house finches;

(e) Parakeets;

(f) Cockatiels;

(g) Mynah birds;

(h) Parrots;

(i) Hamsters;

and etc. So no, it does NOT say "Non-indigenous house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus)"

It just says "non-indigenous house finches" with no further identification. Which when properly interpreted literally as it should be means that none of our pet finches are technically legal here.

BTW - note that parakeets ARE parrots. So are lovebirds. And cockatiels. So apparently parakeets, cockatiels, and lovebirds are twice as legal as other birds, LOL!

It's also nice to know that the keeping of Yak (Bos grunniens) does not require a permit in NV. Yak may actually be easier to find here than the elusive Java finch.

Actually if it HAD identified the particular species of house finch, all the pet finches would STILL be illegal. Actually even MORE illegal, LOL! Because the written law would be less vague and therefore more apt for enforcement.

The chances anyone would DO anything about that are about nil and I am satisfied with interpreting this via the means of paying attention to birds that are specifically banned or specifically require permits. If a bird doesn't appear on one of those two lists I'll settle for that, and no finches appear on either of those lists.

There are also other sections of the law that I couldn't find access to that may or may not define some of the terms used in the sections I COULD find. Not, according to the people I spoke with in the Ag Dept but none of them were legal experts so who knows. If they are correct (and I assume they probably are, especially the last person I spoke to who clearly WAS familiar with and understood the law) then AS WRITTEN all our pet finches are illegal here, LOL!

We have what is called a non-professional legislature here. They actually DO get paid - about $8,000 a year. In contrast, state legislators just across the border in CA get paid over $100,000 per year.

Guess which state attracts better educated and more knowledgeable legislators.

Recently the legislature tried to pass a law intended to favor private schools over public schools by giving over $5k per year to families with kids in private schools. This was clearly illegal and was struck down by the state supreme court. The intention of the bill is to give more money to people who already have plenty by robbing local public school districts of tax money intended for education.

Our public schools here are already heavily burdened and significantly underfunded, resulting in NV being amongst those states with the highest dropout rates and lowest matriculation rates in the nation. We're not ALWAYS #50, but I don't think we've ever risen much above #45. So clearly the solution to that problem is to take money AWAY from schools that already don't have enough. Stupid legislature.

The NV legislature is doing these kinds of things ALL THE TIME because the legislature is composed largely of ideologues who literally do not understand checks and balances - or if they do, they choose to ignore them. Then there are the ones who have no understanding of the law in general. And the two groups have a whole lot of overlap. They think they can pass any old law and it'll be THE LAW regardless of other laws already in place to protect us from rampant trampling of the rights of the public at large.

So this law regarding pet birds may very well be in direct contravention of any number of laws at the federal or even state level. That's just the way things work here with our joke of a legislature. However in this case I think it was just an accident rather than an egregious attempt to undermine anything.


BUT ANYWAY! WHERE ARE MY JAVAS! SOMEONE SAVE ME FROM THE LACK-O-JAVA BLUES!

[Icearstorm]

Sojourner

That is rather odd... Why do laws have to be so convoluted? A passage in my state's Constitution lists everything one can't keep and leaves one to figure out whether or not a certain animal falls into that category; when there are less things one can keep than things one can't, why don't they just list what's allowed? At least the passage you found has a decent setup, though well-informed laws would be better.

[Sojourner]

Icearstorm

They put that in the state CONSTITUTION? Wow. That is really overkill. Constitutional amendments should be limited to things having to do with important and meaningful rights - such as civil rights - not pet ownership.

Laws are convoluted because people will seek loopholes. There are too many laws because people - including many of the people who will seek loopholes for themselves while rigidly enforcing for others - want to control even the private behavior of others. Yet we NEED laws to keep the most rapacious among us from stomping the rest of us into the dirt.

Sadly we don't seem to be a species that is satisfied to mind our own business. Sometimes I think our species as a whole is insane.

[lovezebs]

Sojourner

I would let you know if I hear of any Javas (legal or maybe legal, lol), but forget which state you are in...