Native American tribe gets permit to kill 2 bald eagles

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46729054/ns/us_news-environment/#.T2DHe_U0WSo

Titles about sums it up - a few native american tribes have been given permission to kill bald eagles on their reservation for religious purposes. I'm a bit surprised by the ruling, to be honest - I didn't realize that it was legal to perform animal sacrifices in the USA in the name of "religious freedom", but I guess it is allowed? So if I wanted to gut an ox and leave the entrails and bones for Zeus, I can?

I'm not really objecting to their religion, but the notion of people killing animals just seems kind of backwards to me. Am I missing the point here, or something? Also, if someone could explain how animal sacrifice is suddenly legal, I'd love to hear it.

Is animal sacrifice illegal in the U.S. normally? I'm not asking a facetious question; I don't actually know. It seems to me that as long as it's not harmful to the species population, it's something that can at least be tolerated if it serves a bona fide religious purpose.

Not that I think Native American religion is any more valid than any other religion, but if we're going to treat them equally we should treat them equally.

edited 14th Mar '12 9:55:56 AM by Fighteer

According to the Supreme Court, it can't be illegal when it's for religious practices.

That said, if you're not making it suffer and you plan to actually use the carcass in a mundane way, too, I have no real problem with it any more than I do with religion in general.

Ok, a couple of points:

One: This is One (1) permit for One (1) tribe, to kill Two(2) eagles, once. It's not a blanket permit. It's not an indefinite open season.

Two: It's not a sacrifice, as such, unless you consider killing any animal in order to be able to use parts from it as a "sacrifice". In a sacrifice, it's the killing that's the important part. It's not the killing that's the point of this. It's about getting acceptable-quality feathers and parts to use in their ceremonies. The parts that they can get from the Federal repository come from roadkill and found-carcasses. This means that they often are not in good condition.

As to the question of whether you can kill an ox to offer its entrails to Zeus, sure you can. If it's your ox, (or, if it isn't yours, if the owner agrees), and you don't do it in a way that puts you afoul of animal cruelty laws. If by "gut an ox" you mean "disembowel it while it's still alive", No, you can't, but you can't because it would violate animal cruelty laws, not because you were going to offer the entrails to Zeus.

edited 14th Mar '12 10:23:04 AM by Madrugada

Thanks for clearing that up Mad.

Its morally repugnant, and personally, I think religious freedoms can take a flying fiddle to a freight train (God the mess) in this case.

Its not a massive blip on the scale of suffering, but it's still pointless slaughter.

EDIT: That said... I agree there should be a way to get the feathers... surely you don't have to kill an eagle to get feathers?

edited 14th Mar '12 10:26:42 AM by GameChainsaw

Are there bald eagles in zoos? If so, couldn't they collect feathers that the bird naturally sheds and sell/donate those to the Native Americans? They could also make use of the feathers of such a bird when it dies in the zoo.

I'm not entirely conversant with all the relevant ceremonies, but I'm pretty sure that the Sun Dance (which is the one that started this whole thing) requires eagle down — the small, fluffy underfeathers. That can't really be collected from a live bird, and as for trying to use the molt from captive birds, there are at least two problems with that: down isn't molted in large quantities, and it's not going to be in very good condition if it's picked up from the floor of an enclosure at a zoo.

It's not like they went killing thousands of Bald Eagles for their feathers, if anything Native Americans have been known to respect the land and conserve it, but that might just be a stereotype. It's not morally wrong at all to kill a couple of birds, especially one that isn't Endangered anymore.

[mild offtopic] The degree to which Native Americans live in harmony with nature varies from tribe to tribe. Some have historically been quite destructive to the land[/mild offtopic]

Anyways, I do not want to hear any talk of animal rights from anyone in this thread who isn't a vegan.

(Then again, this seems as likely a place as any to find a large number of vegans . . .)

edited 14th Mar '12 11:03:48 AM by feotakahari

Given the context which has been established here, I see this as a non-issue. They get to kill two birds so they can use their feathers in religious ceremonies. Big deal. The only reason anyone cares is because it's a bald eagle which is (was) endangered, yadda yadda. If they killed a couple of sparrows, nobody would even notice.

edited 14th Mar '12 11:15:46 AM by Fighteer

Why should only vegans talk about Animal rights, I like animals, but I'll eat them and use them to get some food.

That's way into No True Scotsman territory.

Just because I don't think that eating animals is unethical doesn't mean I have no right to support/talk about animal rights.

As for the topic, as has been said, if this were sparrows or some other common creature no one would care. Only the fact that it's a Bald Eagle makes it relevant, so much criticism of this will be hypocritical I think.

Are bald eagles still endangered?

Not since 2007.

I may or may not have had a few bald eagle feathers, when I was in Alaska we had one nesting in the trees near our camp, and its feathers were falling to the ground nearby. It was explained to us that it is illegal to even possess them if you cannot prove that you are some form of Native American. Which is why I may or may not have them anymore.

Is it backwards if you're a hunter? I hunt for my food relatively often. Now given it isn't a sacrifice where I use the entrails for a ritual, but I do hunt for meat, and don't feel it's backwards in any way.

I am no long vegan as it turns out even being a veterinarian long term makes me very sick even with vitamin supplements. (As in wound up in the hospital sick. Doctors orders. Need to eat meat.) That said, I don't see why you would need to be one to speak about animal cruelty. Being a vegan doesn't give you an special insight into animals.

That said, I don't think killing two eagles is the end of the world, or even a big deal as long as it's done in such a way that the birds don't suffer.

edited 14th Mar '12 12:38:35 PM by shimaspawn

I'd like to avoid a general hunting derail: suffice it to say that if you're going to eat meat, it is axiomatic that an animal dies to provide it to you. How that is accomplished, whether by bullet or arrow or assembly line, is not really relevant to the end product. *

I have no inherent problem with Native Americans being given sole license to own bald eagle feathers, so long as they're being respectful of the need to maintain the population.

edited 14th Mar '12 12:47:15 PM by Fighteer

Actually, sometimes hunting has the added advantage of renewing fear of humans in the hunted species. Not sure how much use that might be with eagles, but seeing as how eagles have been known to hunt animals as big as foxes, I suppose making them fear us might help deter them against eating our pets.

Anyway, I'm not typically fond of "exceptions for religious beliefs" (almost anything can be argued to be part of your religion) but in this case it doesn't exactly seem harmful.

I'm kinda surprised that more people didn't know about this practice. I learned about this stuff in grade school.

From what I remember, once a year, a tribe hunts an eagle (the tribes we learned about used golden eagles) because using the parts (feathers are the big one) is a HUGE part of their culture. It's part of their religion, it's part of their coming-of-age ceremonies, eagle feathers are a mark of rank, and so on.

It's less about religious freedom and more about it being an integral part of their culture.

It's also about making sure the federal government doesn't get any ideas about mucking with native land.

Religion is arguably more so a specific aspect of culture anyway. More to the point, religion and culture alike are individual things, which is why I feel a bit uneasy at laws carving out exceptions for the religions or cultures of groups, rather than treating such things as personal. (As in, if someone claimed it were their personal religion or culture to hunt eagles.)

Again, though, in this case, creating one exception that only kills a few eagles is not going to do much harm.

edited 14th Mar '12 1:29:28 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

Its not a massive issue; it comes down to a one-off killing of two birds.

I just don't feel like the pointless killing of two animals should go completely unsung of. Put it this way, I'm not losing any sleep over it. If it wasn't so unusual, it wouldn't even be newsworthy.

This has been going on for years though, due to treaties and the like. This is something I was vaguely aware of beforehand, and goes hand in hand with how they can also smoke peyote and the like, due to specific things laid down in law some time ago. How is this so unusual?

Well, it's regulated much the same way that peyote is. Tons of people have tried to get off of possession charges by claiming religious exemption, but it didn't fly.

Just because peyote is allowed ONLY on native land, and most tribes don't allow non-natives to experience the ritual.

And until stoners get it together enough to actually form a religion (which is quite complicated and can be challenged in court), "religious freedom" isn't going to be an excuse.

edited 14th Mar '12 1:34:11 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Sounds like its less unusual and more my ignorance is showing. And with that I'm ducking out.