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.

scholarly journals Sandhill and Whooping Cranes

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeb Barzen ◽  
Ken Ballinger
Keyword(s):  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Widespread Species ◽  
Sandhill Crane ◽  
Whooping Cranes ◽  
Lethal Management ◽  
Sandhill Cranes ◽  
Endangered Status

As sandhill crane populations continue to grow in the United States, so too does crop damage, property damage to homeowners, and the risk of crane collisions with aircraft. Whooping crane populations also continue to grow, but with a global population of about 500 individuals (as of 2017), damage is rare and problems often require different solutions due to the species’ endangered status. The sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), is a long-lived, member of the crane family (Gruidae) and the most numerous of the 15 crane species found worldwide. Over the last 50 years, the species has grown from a rarity─ requiring extensive protection─ to an abundant, widespread species. As their populations have increased, so too have their conflicts with people. Both sandhill and whooping cranes are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. This law strictly prohibits the capture, killing, or possession of sandhill and whooping cranes without proper permits. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) can issue depredation permits under this act for the shooting of sandhill cranes that causeagricultural damage or threaten human health and safety. No federal permit is required to use non-lethal management methods to reduce damage by sandhill cranes.

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.

scholarly journals European Starlings

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Jeffrey Homan ◽  
Ron J. Johnson ◽  
James R. Thiele ◽  
George M. Linz
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Food Sources ◽  
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations ◽  
European Starlings ◽  
Central Park ◽  
Animal Feeding Operations ◽  
Nest Sites ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris, Figure 1)are an invasive species in the United States. The first recorded release of the birds was in 1890 in New York City’s Central Park. Because starlings easily adapt to a variety of habitats, nest sites and food sources, the birds spread quickly across the country. Today, there are about 150 million starlings in North America. Conflicts between people and starlings occur mostly in agricultural settings. Starlings damage apples, blueberries, cherries, figs, grapes, peaches, and strawberries. Starlings gather at concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) during late fall and winter. Starlings also cause human health problem, airplane hazards, and nuisance problems. European starlings are not protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

Constitutional Law in 1919–1920. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1919

1921 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-70
Author(s):  
Edward S. Corwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Game Warden ◽  
Tenth Amendment ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

From the historical point of view no more interesting case was decided last term than that of Missouri v. Holland, in which a bill in equity brought by the state of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and the regulations made by the secretary of agriculture in pursuance of this act was finally dismissed, Justices Van Devanter and Pitney dissenting without opinion.The objectors to the statute and the underlying treaty based their argument upon the Tenth Amendment, supplemented by the proposition that the control of migratory birds within their respective limits is a power reserved to the states, and from these premises they proceeded to draw the conclusion that “what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the states, a treaty cannot do.” But, Justice Holmes answers in his opinion for the court, the treaty-making power is expressly delegated to the United States, treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land, and by article 1, section 8, Congress may pass all laws necessary and proper to carry valid treaties into effect.

scholarly journals Cedar Waxwings

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Avery ◽  
Anthony G. Dufflney
Keyword(s):  
Prevention And Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bombycilla Cedrorum ◽  
Cedar Waxwing ◽  
And Control ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Avian Family ◽  
The U.S

The cedar waxwing is one of two waxwing species found in North America. The other species is the Bohemian waxwing. Both belong to the avian family Bombycillidae. Prevention and control of cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) damage to small fruits such as blueberry, cherry, and strawberry is vexing to growers in many parts of the United States. Fully protected by the international Migratory Bird Treaty Act, waxwings cannot be taken without a depredation permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

scholarly journals Monk Parakeets

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Avery ◽  
James R. Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Wildlife Management ◽  
Cell Phone ◽  
Captive Breeding ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Electric Utility ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Monk Parakeet ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Since their introduction to the United States in the 1960s, monk parakeets (Myiopsittamonachus) have thrived. Monk parakeets often construct nests on man-made structures, such as electric utility facilities and cell phone towers. Monk parakeets are non-native and not protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Their status at the State level varies considerably─from no regulation to complete protection. Thus, it is best to consult with the appropriate local wildlife management agency before initiating any control efforts. The monk parakeet is a popular cage bird, and although imports from South America have ceased, many are available in the U.S. through captive breeding and from individuals who take young birds from nests.

scholarly journals Mute Swans

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Marks
Keyword(s):  
Native Plants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Mute Swan ◽  
Hudson Valley ◽  
Cygnus Olor ◽  
The Status ◽  
Mute Swans ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Spreading Disease

Mute swans (Cygnus olor) are an invasive species originally brought to the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries for ornamental ponds and lakes, zoos and aviculture collections. Original populations were located in northeastern states along the Hudson Valley but have since expanded to several Midwestern states and portions of the western U.S. and Canada. Mute swan damage includes competing with native waterfowl, destroying native plants, spreading disease, and colliding with aircraft. They are also considered a nuisance in some areas due to their abundant fecal droppings and aggressiveness towards people. Some have questioned the status of mute swans as an introduced species, but multiple reviews by scientists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clearly support the conclusion that mute swans are not native to North America. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, therefore, does not protect mute swans, and management authority falls under jurisdiction of the states and Tribes.

The Constitutionality of Involuntary Civil Commitment of Opiate Addicts

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Narcotic Trafficking ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Opiate Addicts ◽  
The 1960S

This paper deals with the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts. Although the first laws permitting involuntary treatment of opiate addicts were enacted in the second half of the nineteenth century, addicts were not committed in large numbers until California and New York enacted new civil commitment legislation in the 1960s. Inevitably, the courts were called upon to decide if involuntary treatment was constitutional. Both the California and New York courts decided that it was. These decisions were heavily influenced by statements made by the United States Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. The Robinson case did not actually involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment; it involved the question of whether it was constitutional for a state to make addiction a crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declared (in a dictum) that a state might establish a program of compulsory treatment for opiate addicts either to discourage violation of its criminal laws against narcotic trafficking or to safeguard the general health or welfare of its inhabitants. Presumably because the Robinson case did not involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts, the Supreme Court did not go into that question as deeply as it might have. The California and New York courts, in turn, relied too much on this dictum and did not delve deeply into the question. The New York courts did a better job than the California courts, but their work too was not as good as it should have been.

scholarly journals Widespread detection of antibodies to Leptospira in feral swine in the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 143 (10) ◽  
pp. 2131-2136 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. PEDERSEN ◽  
K. L. PABILONIA ◽  
T. D. ANDERSON ◽  
S. N. BEVINS ◽  
C. R. HICKS ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Domestic Animals ◽  
Pathogen Transmission ◽  
Geographical Range ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Feral Swine ◽  
Livestock Predation

SUMMARYAs feral swine continue to expand their geographical range and distribution across the United States, their involvement in crop damage, livestock predation, and pathogen transmission is likely to increase. Despite the relatively recent discovery of feral swine involvement in the aetiology of a variety of pathogens, their propensity to transmit and carry a wide variety of pathogens is disconcerting. We examined sera from 2055 feral swine for antibody presence to six serovars of Leptospira that can also infect humans, livestock or domestic animals. About 13% of all samples tested positive for at least one serovar, suggesting that Leptospira infection is common in feral swine. Further studies to identify the proportion of actively infected animals are needed to more fully understand the risk they pose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document