Is it Illegal to Transport Wildlife

[TechWorker]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Illinois

Recently, an acquaintance of mine was driving and saw a baby duck on a street. The duck seemed to be having a difficult time. The acquaintance took the duck, put the duck into the cupholder of his car, and drove to a nearby pond. At the pond, he released the duck.

I know about all this because my acquaintance bragged about it on Facebook. I like what he did. I, too, love animals. But I'm concerned that my acquaintance may have violated some law and that someone who sees his bragging on Facebook may report him.

So, was any law violated?

[Taxing Matters]

So, was any law violated?

Technically he may have violated Illinois law. Illinois statute 520 ILCS 5/2.2 defines ducks as among the class of “wild birds” and provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person at any time to take, possess, sell, or offer for sale, propagate, or release into the wild, any of these wild birds (dead or alive) and parts of wild birds (including, but not limited to, their nests and eggs), wild mammals (dead or alive) and parts of wild mammals, including their green hides contrary to the provisions of this Act.” The term “take” under the Act means “hunt, shoot, pursue, lure, kill, destroy, capture, gig or spear, trap or ensnare, harass, or to attempt to do so.” 520 ILCS 5/1.2o. The law provides that ducks may be taken by private persons during certain times of the year, under certain conditions, if that person has the appropriate hunting license. Aside from that, however, any taking, possession, or release of wild ducks is prohibited. Your acquaintance captured (took) the baby duck and then released into the wild at a different location than he found it. Both the taking and the release would, applying the statute strictly, violate the state law.

That said, I doubt the Department would take an interest in pursuing prosecution of this. I could see a possible public relations back lash if the Department was too heavy handed. It might want to give a warning to your acquaintance about it, though, and point out that what he did may not have actually been a good thing to do for the baby duck. In the future, he ought to use his cell phone and contact the local animal control office or the Department itself to get help for a wild animal that seems to be in some kind of distress.

[jdbofky]

There are so many federal laws that it can be difficult to live a normal reasonable life day to day without violating one of them. Wildlife officials in a number of states have harassed Native Americans for possessing animal parts that are many decades old. The migratory bird act referenced from Illinois is intended to prevent people from poaching, but the wording of the law can encompass innocent benevolent actions intended to help an animal in distress. Sometimes, however, people take actions that are in the end harmful in their desire to help. TM's suggestion of contacting a wildlife official is good legal advice, but unfortunately I can't imagine them taking much interest in one baby duck. I called them in my own state over a sandhill crane in distress (they are a federally protected threatened species) and they would not respond. Sometimes you just find yourself between a rock and a hard place. My personal decision is to help and risk any negative consequences and that has usually worked out for me, but it does not always work out well for everyone. Such is the modern world we have to live in.