A bird that I don't believe I've ever painted before! Great blue herons are marvelous birds, with lovely colors and all sorts of cool feathers.
I am reminded over and over how hard it is to scan blues accurately, especially when you have a bit of purple mixed in *sigh*. Even Photoshop couldn't help me this time.
Acrylic on turkey tail feather
I am reminded over and over how hard it is to scan blues accurately, especially when you have a bit of purple mixed in *sigh*. Even Photoshop couldn't help me this time.
Acrylic on turkey tail feather
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Avian (Other)
Size 408 x 1200px
File Size 198.4 kB
Painting on feathers is pretty fun isn't it? :D I really like this, it reminds me of the great blue heron that visits our pond. I've only seen him once (but I know he's there more, the dropping tells the tale XD). He's huge, and so elegant! I'm tempted to paint one myself sometime *adds to giant to-do list* LOL, great painting!
I think if a person just has a few feathers, it's pretty obvious that they didn't kill a bird for them. You know, common sense. :( Even worse is the fact that molted feathers are essentially a waste product. It's like making owning shed snakeskins illegal, or shed tufts of fur from wolves illegal.
The law is in place because back in the 1800s, many species of birds were being hunted to near extinction for their plumes. The Migratory Bird Act of 1918 was put in place to make it illegal to own the feathers, which makes sense - just because you didn't kill a bird for a feather doesn't mean someone else didn't so they could sell it for your hat. However, if you can prove the source of where you got the feather ("Yes, DEP officer, this red-tailed hawk feather came from this captive educational bird and was moulted naturally."), then I don't think it should be against the law.
The law is in place because back in the 1800s, many species of birds were being hunted to near extinction for their plumes. The Migratory Bird Act of 1918 was put in place to make it illegal to own the feathers, which makes sense - just because you didn't kill a bird for a feather doesn't mean someone else didn't so they could sell it for your hat. However, if you can prove the source of where you got the feather ("Yes, DEP officer, this red-tailed hawk feather came from this captive educational bird and was moulted naturally."), then I don't think it should be against the law.
Er, clarification on that last sentence -
However, if you can prove the source of where you got the feather ... then I don't think it should be against the law.
- means that my opinion is that it shouldn't be against the law. It still IS against the law, regardless of where you got the feathers.
However, if you can prove the source of where you got the feather ... then I don't think it should be against the law.
- means that my opinion is that it shouldn't be against the law. It still IS against the law, regardless of where you got the feathers.
FA+

Comments