[Tweeters] Fw: Migratory Birds Legislation in the US and Canada

Mike Wile mikewile at comcast.net
Sun Dec 12 01:58:46 PST 2004

Dear Brett-

I felt that I must comment on your recent email, as I found it a bit offensive.

I realize that recently conservation has become much more of a bastion of liberal thought than it was in the days of its infancy. However, I believe that the insinuation that conservatives cannot be conservationists is divisive and fallacious.

I must admit that I cannot afford a $10,000,000 condo on Central Park, but yes, I supported the current administration. Twice even. I do abhor much of their environmental policy, which I consider negligent in many ways. However, I feel the liberal cognoscenti, although claiming to be environmentalists, have a poor solution for our environmental crisis. My ballot choice both times was a careful reconciliation of my thoughts on all issues.

So, yes, I am a conservative. I also believe I am an environmentalist. I donate to environmental charitable funds. And, I donate my time to environmental pursuits. Most importantly, I strive to teach my children the importance of being stewards, rather than consumers/abusers of the environment.

My point here Brett is that we, as birders and environmentalists, should do our best to work together to save and restore our natural environment in whatever way makes sense for each of us. We may disagree on the best way to do it, but I don't think ostracizing anyone (like me) who may have different beliefs is appropriate.

My two cents worth anyways.

Thanks for listening.


Mike Wile
Redmond, WA
mikewile at comcast.net

. ----- Original Message -----
From: B. A. Wolfe
To: Wayne C. Weber ; TWEETERS
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Fw: Migratory Birds Legislation in the US and Canada

Thanks Wayne,

Unfortunately, as long as we have extreme anti-environmentalists like the current administration that somehow got re-elected in this country, we will never get any kind of good protection laws going. As a matter of fact, the laws that are there are being quickly eroded by these people. And who helped re-elect them, and paid for their campaigns? Super wealthy people who can afford a $10,000,000+ condo like those that evicted Pale Male & Lola. Beglad that in Canada you have seen more liberal lawmakers in recent years, who actually do something to help the environment, but also never forget that even they leave much to be desired.

Brett A. Wolfe
Seattle, WA

"Wayne C. Weber" <contopus at telus.net> wrote:

The recent publicity about the destruction of the Red-tailed Hawk nest
adjacent to Central Park in New York City has underlined inadequacies
in the laws protecting raptor nests in the US-- or at least in the
interpretation of those laws.

Had a similar event occurred in Canada, it would probably have been
considered illegal, and there would have been at least a possibility
of prosecution of the persons responsible.

I am attaching a copy of a message I sent to the BIRDCHAT E-mail
group, which may interest those of you concerned about this issue.

Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus at telus.net

----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne C. Weber
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:29 PM
Subject: Migratory Birds Legislation in the US and Canada

> Birdchatters,
> Recent messages from Barry Kent McKay, Marcel Gahbauer, and others
> indicate some confusion about legislation protecting migratory birds
> in the US and Canada.
> The Migratory Birds Convention is a treaty signed between the US and
> Canada in 1916. However, a treaty is meaningless unless implemented
> legislation on each side of the border.
> The Migratory Birds Convention has been implemented by the Migratory
> Bird Treaty Act in the US, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act in
> Canada. The Canadian act was amended in 1994, and the 1994 version
> the current one. The two pieces of legislation have similar, but not
> identical, provisions. Even the list of species protected is not
> identical in the two countries.
> The interpretation of the provisions respecting the destruction of
> nests of protected species has been different in the two countries.
> was my understanding that, in the US, protection has always been
> extended only to active, occupied nests (i.e., those containing eggs
> or young). In Canada, protection has generally been extended to
> and inactive nests of species which reuse their nests year after
> (e.g. raptors, herons, cormorants, Cliff and Barn Swallows. However,
> this is an interpretation only, subject to court decisions, and is
> spelled out in the legislation per se.
> In British Columbia, for example, application of this policy to
> provincial highways has resulted in a cessation of the formerly
> widespread practice of removing Cliff Swallow nest from highway
> bridges outside of the breeding season.
> In a nutshell, it appears that the destruction of Pale Male's nest,
> while not illegal in the US, would have been considered illegal in
> Canada, and could have been the subject of a prosecution.
> The US has taken a narrow interpretation of the provision protecting
> nests of protected species, while Canada has taken a broader
> interpretation (although this provision is still widely ignored--
> witness the thousands of nests of migratory birds destroyed every
> year, without permits, in logging operations). What is needed, it
> seems, is a broader interpretation of the U.S. legislation, or else
> amendment to the legislation that extends protection for nests of
> bird species (such as raptors) to the non-breeding season.
> Wayne C. Weber
> Delta, BC
> contopus at telus.net

Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.


Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu

More information about the Tweeters mailing list