1) We don’t know what state OP lives in so you can’t say with certainty it isn’t violating state law too.1) the act you are quoting ONLY applies to Federal Law and not state law AND does not list the EXEMPTIONS such as some have already mentioned on here i.e. zoos
2) the act you are quoting ONLY applies to CERTAIN situations and to CERTAIN avian species
For example, they (meaning cities and homeowners associations) REGULARLY and LEGALLY round up and KILL Muscovy ducks in Florida as it is not A NATIVE species. Neither is the Florida Flamingo. So there are A LOT of situations that this ACT does NOT apply.
Also, the legislative intent behind the ACT is for harming or transporting in interstate commerce, not for someone wanting to love and take care of an abandon animal.
Just like I read on here is it illegal to use certain antibiotics. If you actually read the law it is for people that are raising the poultry for commercial purposes. It does not apply when it is someone's pet.
Actually, I am NOT getting off this site as there will always be bullies. If I BOIL your blood then you go spend hundred of thousands of dollars on law school. She can NOW say she depended on an ATTORNEYS advice in keeping her DUCK!
2)Mallards are one of the protected species and a zoo would most certainly have a permit.
The purpose of the act is to protect wildlife and keep people from meddling. To protect a nest of eggs on a boat that a fisherman just wants to dump overboard so he can go fishing. To protect a Golden Eagle from drowning in a drum of oil because the oil company is too cheap to put on a cover. To protect a brood of ducklings from a person who thinks they are just so cute and have to be taken home.
Like I already said, it ultimately boils down to a difference in morals. Even if there were no laws against it, I would still view the act as morally wrong. If you have a different view that’s your right but it doesn’t make my viewpoint wrong.
