CommentsGELFAND’S WORLD--This is the hundredth anniversary of something called the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
It came about due to political pressure over the extinction of several bird species. In school, we learned about the passenger pigeon, a once prevalent species that was hunted to non-existence. In response to the damage, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico (among others) agreed to protect migratory birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 codified the agreement.
According to the Audubon Society and others, the treaty has been effective and has saved millions of birds. The Trump administration has been going after environmental protections (no surprise there) and this is one of them.
A story in the Washington Post titled The Trump Administration has Officially Clipped the Wings of the Migratory Bird Treaty Actexplains the problem in detail. In brief, the Trump administration is giving an out to the big polluters (oil companies and electric utilities) that have done and will do the most damage. Here is an excerpt from that article:
"In an opinion issued Wednesday to federal wildlife police who enforce the rule, the Interior Department said “the take [killing] of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds.” For example, the guidance said, a person who destroys a structure such as a barn knowing that it is full of baby owls in nests is not liable for killing them. “All that is relevant is that the landowner undertook an action that did not have the killing of barn owls as its purpose,” the opinion said."
So, if you are aware of the existence of birds that would otherwise be covered under the act, but you can make up some excuse for what you are doing, you can kill them anyway.
Here's one more excerpt from the same article:
"The MBTA will no longer apply even after a catastrophic event such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that destroyed or injured up to a million birds."
This is just one more outrage that is typical of this administration. To confirm how radical and destructive this action is, let me add one more quote from the Post article:
"Seventeen former Interior officials, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife directors under presidents Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, repudiated the reinterpretation when it was first announced in December."
This group of experts comes from a wide political range -- among the most liberal and the most conservative administrations in recent history -- and they are complaining. Members of both Bush administrations join representatives from Clinton and Obama in protesting this action.
Here is an obvious example. If an oil company dumps waste products on the ground to form what looks like a pond (particularly when a thin layer of water is on top, something that will happen after any rain) then this can be a landing spot for migratory birds. Think of the La Brea Tar Pits. Under the new interpretation, the oil company can claim that bird deaths are an incidental result of an otherwise rational business pursuit, and the government will no longer cite them.
In truth, this administration piles outrage upon outrage, and it is difficult to fight them all.
(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected])
-cw
