If the Fish and Wildlife Service is successful in changing the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, "incidental take (the killing of birds) resulting from an otherwise
'lawful activity' would not be prohibited”!! That means a company would have to
be intentionally killing birds for there to be consequences.
It was the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that was in part responsible for the
enormous fine British Petroleum had to pay when the New Horizon oil spill
killed a million birds. Since BP didn't intend to kill birds it wouldn’t have
been in violation and wouldn’t have had to pay a fine!
Comments are due July 20th. Members of the Conservation Policy Committee of TOS
would be happy to help you compose your letter if needed.
TOS Conservation Policy Committee Co-chair
TOS CPC Co-chair
A copy of the draft environmental impact statement is available here:
On Jul 11, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Cynthia Routledge <routledges@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
HAVE YOU COMMENTED YET?? Please take time to send in your comments ON THIS
VERY IMPORTANT MATTER!
Bird protections are under attack in a major way and we have two weeks to
make our voices heard. In 2017 the Administration ceased enforcement of
penalties for bird deaths caused by avoidable industrial hazards. Now the
Fish and Wildlife Service wants to codify that rule. The new rule would apply
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protections only when an activity
“purposefully” kills birds. The comment period for the draft Environmental
Impact Statement for this new rule is midnight July 20th. Submit your
This link summarizes the Alternatives in the draft EIS. Alternative B is
the best alternative to return the protections we have traditionally relied
on. You should make reference to this in your letter.
This link takes you to an excellent description of what the loss of these
protections would mean and has talking points you can use for your letter
/ |` Cyndi Routledge
Conservation and Policy Committee of TOS
Southeastern Avian Research