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

Peter Sullins TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net
Sun Dec 12 12:19:59 PST 2004


I voted for the other guy... But hear, hear... I agree with you
completely... We can all work the issues...

Peter Sullins
The Sullins Family
In The Village of Silver Firs
Everett, WA
TheSullinsFamily at earthlink.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin


From: tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu
[mailto:tweeters-bounces at mailman1.u.washington.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Wile
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 1:59 AM
To: B. A. Wolfe; Wayne C. Weber; TWEETERS
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] Fw: Migratory Birds Legislation in the US and Canada

Dear Brett-

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

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

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

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 <mailto:gismybabe at yahoo.com>
To: Wayne C. Weber <mailto:contopus at telus.net> ; TWEETERS
<mailto:tweeters at u.washington.edu>
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!?
om/new_mail/static/protection.html> Mail - You care about security. So do


Tweeters mailing list
Tweeters at u.washington.edu

More information about the Tweeters mailing list