Wide Reach of Migratory Bird Treaty Act for Energy Projects

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 25-29
Author(s):  
Julie A. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Energy Projects ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

scholarly journals Hawks and Owls

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Washbum
Keyword(s):  
Companion Animals ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Environmental Services ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Economic And Social Impacts

Hawks and owls can negatively impact a variety of human interests, including important natural resources, livestock and game bird production, human health and safety, and companion animals. Conflicts between raptors and people generally are localized and often site-specific. However, the economic and social impacts to the individuals involved can be severe. Despite the problems they may cause, hawks and owls provide important benefits and environmental services. Raptors are popular with birdwatchers and much of the general public. They also hunt and kill large numbers of rodents, reducing crop damage and other problems. Hawks and owls are classified into four main groups, namely accipiters, buteos, falcons, and owls. All hawks and owls in the United States are federally pro-tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, 703−711). Hawks and owls typically are protected under state wildlife laws or local ordinances, as well. These laws strictly prohibit the capture, killing, or possession of hawks or owls (or their parts) without a special permit (e.g., Feder-al Depredation Permit), issued by the USFWS. State-issued wildlife damage or depredation permits also may be required.

Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws, and future directions

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Blake Levitt ◽  
Henry C. Lai ◽  
Albert M. Manville
Keyword(s):  
Electromagnetic Fields ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Environmental Pollutant ◽  
Biologically Active ◽  
National Environmental Policy Act ◽  
Environmental Laws ◽  
Low Level ◽  
New Vision ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Ambient Levels

Abstract Due to the continuous rising ambient levels of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) used in modern societies—primarily from wireless technologies—that have now become a ubiquitous biologically active environmental pollutant, a new vision on how to regulate such exposures for non-human species at the ecosystem level is needed. Government standards adopted for human exposures are examined for applicability to wildlife. Existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the U.S. and others used in Canada and throughout Europe, should be strengthened and enforced. New laws should be written to accommodate the ever-increasing EMF exposures. Radiofrequency radiation exposure standards that have been adopted by worldwide agencies and governments warrant more stringent controls given the new and unusual signaling characteristics used in 5G technology. No such standards take wildlife into consideration. Many species of flora and fauna, because of distinctive physiologies, have been found sensitive to exogenous EMF in ways that surpass human reactivity. Such exposures may now be capable of affecting endogenous bioelectric states in some species. Numerous studies across all frequencies and taxa indicate that low-level EMF exposures have numerous adverse effects, including on orientation, migration, food finding, reproduction, mating, nest and den building, territorial maintenance, defense, vitality, longevity, and survivorship. Cyto- and geno-toxic effects have long been observed. It is time to recognize ambient EMF as a novel form of pollution and develop rules at regulatory agencies that designate air as ‘habitat’ so EMF can be regulated like other pollutants. Wildlife loss is often unseen and undocumented until tipping points are reached. A robust dialog regarding technology’s high-impact role in the nascent field of electroecology needs to commence. Long-term chronic low-level EMF exposure standards should be set accordingly for wildlife, including, but not limited to, the redesign of wireless devices, as well as infrastructure, in order to reduce the rising ambient levels (explored in Part 1). Possible environmental approaches are discussed. This is Part 3 of a three-part series.

The Black and White

2020 ◽  
pp. 68-80
Author(s):  
Sara Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Human Contact ◽  
Game Birds ◽  
Audubon Society ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

This chapter recounts how the author found a dead black-and-white warbler many years ago. It details the author's first visit to a taxidermy studio. Even though the idea of having the warbler mounted and displayed on the author's mantle was irresistible, they knew it was also illegal. In 1918, Congress passed the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the MBTA. The MBTA saved hundreds of species from the destruction, and sometimes extinction, brought on by the effects of commercial bird trade. It essentially bans any human contact with migratory birds. One may not kill, capture, or pursue them; one may not collect their eggs or nests or even their feathers; and one may not pick them up if they are dead. Taxidermists know all this, and so — with the exception of the permitted, but regulated game birds from hunting — they will not get near a migratory bird. The author then joined a team of local Audubon Society volunteers in order to get a salvage permit, which lets people temporarily possess a migratory bird.

scholarly journals Geese, Ducks and Coots

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cummings
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Canada Geese ◽  
Agricultural Crop ◽  
Snow Geese ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
American Coot

Canada geese, snow geese, ducks, and American coots all have been implicated in agricultural crop and turf damage. Generally, goose, duck, and American coot damage to crops, vegetation and aircraft can be difficult to identify. Usually the damage to crops or vegetation shows signs of being clipped, torn, or stripped. Tracks, feces, or feathers found neat the damage can be used to help identify the species. Damage to aircraft is obvious if the bird is recovered, but if not, and only bird parts are recovered, a scientific analysis is required. Canada geese, snow geese, ducks, and American coots are federally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which stipulates that, unless permitted by regulation, it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, barter, purchase, ship, export, or import any migratory birds alive or dead, or any part, nests, eggs, or products thereof.” Generally, geese, ducks, and coots can be hazed without a federal permit in order to prevent damage to agriculture crops and property with a variety of scare techniques. In most cases, live ammunition cannot be used.

scholarly journals Herons and Egrets

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Hoy
Keyword(s):  
Bird Species ◽  
Food Preferences ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Property Value ◽  
The Family ◽  
Coastal Birds ◽  
Intensively Managed ◽  
Aquaculture Facilities ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Herons and egrets commonly cause damage at aquaculture facilities and recreational fishing waters where fish are held at high densities. Fish-eating birds also can have an impact on intensively managed sport fisheries. Damage occurs when herons and egrets feed on fish purchased and released for recreational sport fishing activities. Values of these fish can be quite high given the intensity of management activities and the direct relationship of fishery quality to property value. Herons and egrets are freshwater or coastal birds of the family Ardeidae. Herons and egrets discussed in this section are all piscivorous. They are opportunistic feeders, however, and will consume small amphibians, insects, and reptiles. Due to these food preferences, herons and egrets are attracted to shallow lakes and human-made impoundments. Native bird species are covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and given federal protection. Depredation permits can be obtained through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, individual states may require their own permits for legal take of these bird species.

scholarly journals More than Birds: Developing a New Environmental Jurisprudence Through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

2019 ◽  
pp. 789
Author(s):  
Patrick Maroun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
Act One ◽  
Environmental Jurisprudence

This year marks the centennial of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of the oldest environmental regulatory statutes in the United States. It is illegal to “take” or “kill” any migratory bird covered by the Act. But many of the economic and industrial assumptions that undergirded the Act in 1918 have changed dramatically. Although it is undisputed that hunting protected birds is prohibited, circuit courts split on whether so-called “incidental takings” fall within the scope of the Act. The uncertainty inherent in this disagreement harms public and private interests alike—not to mention migratory birds. Many of the most important environmental statutes are also aging and may soon face similar interpretive issues. This Note argues that, to address inherent problems with aging environmental statutes, courts should adopt a jurisprudential preference for fidelity to each statute’s purpose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document