Re:Art's sale value? Zero. The tax bill? $29M
by michaelt on Friday July 19, 2019 @07:43AM
(#20477779)
the original owner was able to
own the piece in the first
instance on very shaky grounds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act [1] and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act [2] both allow permits, issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service, for possession of the protected birds.This is used, for example, to allow museum exhibitions and Native American religious ceremonies. There's even a special form [3] to apply for the permit!
So long as the eagle is in a museum that meets the requirements of the eagle exhibition permit, the ground seems pretty firm to me!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migratory_Bird_Treaty_Act_of_1... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_and_Golden_Eagle_Protecti... [3] https://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/permit_types/exhibition_de...
"Even then, the government revisited the issue in 1998. Rauschenberg himself had to send a notarized statement attesting that the eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders long before the 1940 law went into effect. Mrs. Sonnabend was then able to retain ownership as long as the work continued to be exhibited at a public museum. The piece is on a long-term loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, which Mr. Lerner said insures it, but the policy details are confidential."
I appreciate the intent behind the law, but this is one of those situations where a sensible argument could be made that a stuffed bird from before the law was put into place is hurting no one.