![]() ![]() ![]() If a colony of terns were nesting on a beach, the owner would be allowed to rake debris off the beach, taking the nests with it, as long as the intent was to rake the beach and not destroy the nests.Ī draft environmental impact statements is now under review and the Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking public comments.Īlthough it’s clear that the Department of the Interior wants to make the changes, and that the rollbacks we’re asking for are a longshot, your voice is still important, but you can be assured that we will continue our work to oppose these changes. The owner of a barn with nesting Barn Swallows, for example, could demolish the barn and destroy the nests, as long as it was not the owner’s intent to harm the birds. Under the “incidental take” changes, it would be perfectly legal to kill birds or destroy their nests as long as it wasn’t your intent to do so. These changes would make the law virtually unenforceable. ![]() Only “intentional harm” would count.Īmong the reasons this is bad policy is that it is very difficult to prove intent in a court of law. The department said it would no longer be a violation to “incidentally” kill birds during the course of doing business. Department of the Interior changed the way this law was enforced. This act is the foundation of the modern bird conservation movement and provides significant protections for native birds. Fish and Wildlife Service and tell them the rollbacks to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are unacceptable. JEssential parts of the nation’s most important bird protection law are about to be rolled back. Under the new rules, it will be acceptable to destroy nests and kills birds, such as Barn Swallows, as long as it wasn’t your intent to do so. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |