[HPforGrownups] RE: Do we really get our closer?

[Bart Lidofsky]

No: HPFGUIDX 177130

>Sharon:
>Dumbledore performed magic without a wand on
>several occasions, for example, in OOP when he
>dissapears from his office with Fawkes when the
>Ministry try to cart him off to Azkaban. Well at
>least there is no mention of him using his wand,
>he just disappears. Also in PS, McGonagal
>transfigures into a cat and back again without a
>wand. It is conceivable that very powerful wizards
>may perform magic without wands. There's nothing
>in the books that I recall that says it's
>impossible. Sirius had a long time in Azkaban to
>work out how to do it.

Bart:
I think it's even simpler than that. I'm not sure we have canon saying that a wand is necessary to activate animagus abilities. We DO have canon showing that Tonks can change her appearance without a wand, and Harry doesn't need a wand to speak parseltongue. In other words, if a wizard has an innate ability, s/he does not need a wand to activate it. Now, consider: Moodycrouch turned Draco into a ferret, without much apparent difficulty. And the fact that he was able to do so was not considered to be any great feat. So, turning a wizard into an animal and back is not a great piece of magic, nor does it have to be registered. 

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that when a wizard becomes an animagus, it is not so much the ability to turn into an animal but to turn BACK into a wizard without aid (as very few animals can handle wands properly). And, given the fact that animagi have to be registered, it is also a quite reasonable conclusion that the animagus spell gives the wizard the INNATE ABILITY to change to and from animal form.

Bart