CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,233
edits
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Soviet Union" to "Soviet Union"
(Rescued 1 archive link. Wayback Medic 2.5 per Category:All articles with dead external links - pass 4) |
m (Text replacement - "Soviet Union" to "Soviet Union") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service]] issues permits for otherwise prohibited activities under the act. These include permits for [[taxidermy]], [[falconry]], propagation, scientific and educational use, and depredation, an example of the last being the killing of geese near an airport, where they pose a danger to aircraft. | The [[United States Fish and Wildlife Service]] issues permits for otherwise prohibited activities under the act. These include permits for [[taxidermy]], [[falconry]], propagation, scientific and educational use, and depredation, an example of the last being the killing of geese near an airport, where they pose a danger to aircraft. | ||
The Act was enacted in an era when many bird species were threatened by the commercial trade in birds and bird [[feather]]s. The Act was one of the first federal [[environmental law]]s (the [[Lacey Act]] had been enacted in 1900). The Act replaced the earlier [[Weeks-McLean Act]] (1913). Since 1918, similar conventions between the United States and four other nations have been made and incorporated into the MBTA: [[Mexico]] (1936), [[Japan]] (1972) and the | The Act was enacted in an era when many bird species were threatened by the commercial trade in birds and bird [[feather]]s. The Act was one of the first federal [[environmental law]]s (the [[Lacey Act]] had been enacted in 1900). The Act replaced the earlier [[Weeks-McLean Act]] (1913). Since 1918, similar conventions between the United States and four other nations have been made and incorporated into the MBTA: [[Mexico]] (1936), [[Japan]] (1972) and the Soviet Union (1976, now its [[successor state]] [[Russia]]). Some of the conventions stipulate protections not only for the birds themselves, but also for habitats and environments necessary for the birds' survival. | ||
Constitutionally this law is of interest as it is a use of the federal treaty-making power to override the provisions of state law. The principle that the federal government may do this was upheld in the case ''[[Missouri v. Holland]].'' In a defense of the treaty, Federal Judge [[Valerie Caproni]] on August 11, 2020, wrote in a decision, "It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Fears|first=Darryl|date=August 12, 2020|title=Quoting 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' judge strikes down Trump administration rollback of historic law protecting birds|language=en-US|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/08/11/quoting-kill-mockingbird-judge-struck-down-trumps-rollback-historic-law-protecting-birds/|access-date=2020-12-14|issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-08-11|title=Victory! Federal Judge Rules Administration's Bird-Killing Policy is Illegal|url=https://www.audubon.org/news/victory-federal-judge-rules-administrations-bird-killing-policy-illegal|access-date=2020-12-14|website=Audubon|language=en}}</ref> | Constitutionally this law is of interest as it is a use of the federal treaty-making power to override the provisions of state law. The principle that the federal government may do this was upheld in the case ''[[Missouri v. Holland]].'' In a defense of the treaty, Federal Judge [[Valerie Caproni]] on August 11, 2020, wrote in a decision, "It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Fears|first=Darryl|date=August 12, 2020|title=Quoting 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' judge strikes down Trump administration rollback of historic law protecting birds|language=en-US|newspaper=Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/08/11/quoting-kill-mockingbird-judge-struck-down-trumps-rollback-historic-law-protecting-birds/|access-date=2020-12-14|issn=0190-8286}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-08-11|title=Victory! Federal Judge Rules Administration's Bird-Killing Policy is Illegal|url=https://www.audubon.org/news/victory-federal-judge-rules-administrations-bird-killing-policy-illegal|access-date=2020-12-14|website=Audubon|language=en}}</ref> | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
In the August 24, 2006, edition of the [[Federal Register]], the U.S. [[Department of the Interior]]'s [[Fish and Wildlife Service]] proposed adding 152 species, removing 12 species, and correcting/updating the common or scientific names of numerous others. Reasons for the proposed revisions include birds mistakenly omitted previously, new evidence on geographic distribution, taxonomic changes, etc. In addition, the mute swan (''[[Cygnus olor]]''), which was afforded temporary protection due to court order since 2001, is formally excluded from protection in the proposal due to "nonnative and human introduced" status. The previous update to the list occurred on 5 April 1985. | In the August 24, 2006, edition of the [[Federal Register]], the U.S. [[Department of the Interior]]'s [[Fish and Wildlife Service]] proposed adding 152 species, removing 12 species, and correcting/updating the common or scientific names of numerous others. Reasons for the proposed revisions include birds mistakenly omitted previously, new evidence on geographic distribution, taxonomic changes, etc. In addition, the mute swan (''[[Cygnus olor]]''), which was afforded temporary protection due to court order since 2001, is formally excluded from protection in the proposal due to "nonnative and human introduced" status. The previous update to the list occurred on 5 April 1985. | ||
On January 9, 2001, the [[US Supreme Court]] ruled 5-to-4 to throw out what had been dubbed the "[[Migratory Bird Rule]]", in ''[[Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers]]'' – a case that pitted a consortium of towns around | On January 9, 2001, the [[US Supreme Court]] ruled 5-to-4 to throw out what had been dubbed the "[[Migratory Bird Rule]]", in ''[[Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers]]'' – a case that pitted a consortium of towns around Chicago against the [[US Army Corps of Engineers]] over isolated wetlands inhabited or visited by over 100 migratory bird species.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1178.ZS.html |title=Solid Waste Agency Of Northern Cook Cty. V.Army Corps Of Engineers |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |access-date=2018-09-21}}</ref> In this case, [[Skokie, Illinois]], wanted abandoned quarries filled with water, but not connected to another or navigable body of water to serve as a site for a solid waste facility. For the previous 15 years, lower courts had sustained the law in favor of migratory birds, siding with the Army Corps.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01water.html?hp | work=The New York Times | title=Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A | first1=Charles | last1=Duhigg | first2=Janet | last2=Roberts | date=2010-02-28 | access-date=2010-05-12}}</ref> | ||
At least one state reacted to the new Supreme Court ruling by restoring isolated wetlands protection: 2001 Wisconsin Act 6, is the first of its kind nationwide to restore wetlands regulation to the state after federal authority had been revoked. It restores protection to over one million acres (4,000 km²) of isolated wetlands in Wisconsin. On May 7, 2001, Wisconsin Governor [[Scott McCallum]] signed a bill protecting wetlands by placing Wisconsin wetlands regulation under the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bipartisan state legislators fully supported the bill and felt it was necessary after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal clean water act didn't give the corps authority over decisions involving isolated wetlands.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wsn.org/wetlands/wetlandsbattle.html|title=How We Won The Battle For Isolated Wetlands in Wisconsin|first=Will|last=Fantle|website=www.wsn.org}}</ref> | At least one state reacted to the new Supreme Court ruling by restoring isolated wetlands protection: 2001 Wisconsin Act 6, is the first of its kind nationwide to restore wetlands regulation to the state after federal authority had been revoked. It restores protection to over one million acres (4,000 km²) of isolated wetlands in Wisconsin. On May 7, 2001, Wisconsin Governor [[Scott McCallum]] signed a bill protecting wetlands by placing Wisconsin wetlands regulation under the jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bipartisan state legislators fully supported the bill and felt it was necessary after the Supreme Court ruled that the federal clean water act didn't give the corps authority over decisions involving isolated wetlands.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wsn.org/wetlands/wetlandsbattle.html|title=How We Won The Battle For Isolated Wetlands in Wisconsin|first=Will|last=Fantle|website=www.wsn.org}}</ref> | ||