collapse

Poll

Should companies be liable for bird kills?

Yes
No

Author Topic: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills  (Read 503 times)

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8554
Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« on: December 26, 2017, 05:03:23 PM »
For decades courts have battled whether "incidental take" of migratory birds was prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The MBTA protects all migratory birds, and establishes hunting seasons for migratory game birds. The "incidental take" was most commonly applied to businesses, especially energy companies where migratory birds were killed incidental to their operations. Examples of this includes birds falling in oil pits, birds getting whacked by windmills, etc.

The numerous circuit courts of appeals have sided both in favor and against "incidental take" being prohibited under the MBTA. SCOTUS has never ruled on the issues. Prior to Obama leaving office the Department of Interior Solicitor (agency lawyers) published an opinion stating "incidental take" is prohibited under the MBTA. A Solicitor's Opinion is just that, an opinion, it holds weight in court, but courts can rule against it. It's more commonly used as a guide to agency operations. So since the DOI Solicitor said "incidental take" is prohibited under the MBTA USFWS continued investigations of "indidental take."

Last week the DOI Solicitor (now under Pres. Trump) issued a new opinion stating "incidental take" is NOT prohibited under the MBTA. Further stating the MBTA is to regulate hunting and poaching and not "incidental take." So this essentially means power companies are no longer liable for bird kills.

So here is a real life example of the new opinion:

Hunter John Doe is quail hunting, he flushes a bird (thinking it's a quail) and shoots it. It turns out to be a western meadowlark. John Doe can be charged under the MBTA for illegal take of a migratory bird.

ABC Power and Oil company have an uncovered pit and 20 western meadowlarks die after being stuck in the pit. Since this was incidental to business operations, ABC Power and Oil is not liable for the bird kills.

Offline olyguy79

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 316
  • Location: Thurston
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2017, 05:08:22 PM »
I'm not a fan.

So basically migratory birds are protected from poachers/people but not big business. Doesn't make sense. If it's protected, it should be protected from all.

Offline Lucky1

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 2287
  • Location: Kelso
  • Groups: NRA. REMF.
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2017, 05:16:10 PM »
I think it is a good rule. Government regulation and punitive rules drive up our cost of power and goods and services we use. Every thing we do has some effect on our environment. If you use electricity you are partially responsible for the bird deaths from wind turbines. You think you should be penalized for that? The power is for public good.
If it can be shown that some practice is killing off a species, something proactive should probably be done to change the processes.
Maybe the MBTA should be changed to reduce penalties for accidental kills.

Offline KFhunter

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 16072
  • Location: The Wedge
  • My posts do not reflect an official opinion of HW
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2017, 05:16:17 PM »
Other regulatory measures should monitor and regulate this, not specifically as it applies to migratory birds but all incidental killing of wildlife.
SCI

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8554
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2017, 05:18:07 PM »
Maybe the MBTA should be changed to reduce penalties for accidental kills.
The minimum fine is $0.... Nobody said they were getting maximum penalties.

Offline olyguy79

  • Political Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Scout
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2016
  • Posts: 316
  • Location: Thurston
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #5 on: December 26, 2017, 05:21:19 PM »
Other regulatory measures should monitor and regulate this, not specifically as it applies to migratory birds but all incidental killing of wildlife.
Are you calling for more government regulations?  :chuckle:

In all seriousness though, the only protection I knew of were for migratory birds. I think a big question now will be for eagles which are protected under both the MBTA and Bald & Golden Eagle Act. Time will tell.  :twocents:

Offline bigtex

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 8554
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #6 on: December 26, 2017, 05:24:24 PM »
Other regulatory measures should monitor and regulate this, not specifically as it applies to migratory birds but all incidental killing of wildlife.
Are you calling for more government regulations?  :chuckle:

In all seriousness though, the only protection I knew of were for migratory birds. I think a big question now will be for eagles which are protected under both the MBTA and Bald & Golden Eagle Act. Time will tell.  :twocents:
The burden of proof is higher under the Bald & Golden Protection Eagle Act than under the MBTA.

Under MBTA the govt. just needs to prove you took a migratory bird.

Under BGEPA the govt. needs to prove you knowingly took the bird.

Offline Antlershed

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2007
  • Posts: 4196
  • Location: Tenino, WA
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2017, 07:55:42 PM »
I'm not a fan.

So basically migratory birds are protected from poachers/people but not big business. Doesn't make sense. If it's protected, it should be protected from all.
So if a duck flies into a wind turbine, the company should have to pay a fine?  :dunno:
-Brent

Offline Tbar

  • Non-Hunting Topics
  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2011
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: Whatcom county
  • That Boy Ain't Right
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2017, 08:15:18 PM »
Doesn't FERC regulate the prices? Also many of the beneficiaries will be foreign owned companies, correct? This will lessen the mitigation requirements (i.e. habitat projects) correct?

Offline Skillet

  • Business Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Posts: 3976
  • Location: Sitka / Everett
Re: Dept. of Interior Says Companies No Longer Liable for Bird Kills
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2017, 09:33:30 PM »
I'm not a fan.

So basically migratory birds are protected from poachers/people but not big business. Doesn't make sense. If it's protected, it should be protected from all.
So if a duck flies into a wind turbine, the company should have to pay a fine?  :dunno:

I highly doubt they ever had to pay a fine for a single duck strike under the existing reg's.  But as a counter hypothetical - If the meadowlarks in bigtex's example die in an open pit of waste, the company shouldn't be asked to mitigate future potential damage?  Cover the pit, deal with the open waste, etc?

This is unnecessary deregulation at the behest of K street.  Just because some regulations are bad, doesn't mean all regulations are bad.  I completely agree that typical bureaucratic red tape is a real impediment to a small business, but there are actual benefits to sportsmen by adhering to the spirit of the MBTA.  This opinion sets a dangerous precedent.  First it's migratory birds, soon it's salmon (covered under the Pacific Salmon Treaty). Hey, those dams shouldn't need to be spilling water at specific times for smolt outmigration, right?  Cause that's just the incidental cost of doing that business...
KABOOM Count - 1

"The ocean is calling, and I must go."

 

* Recent Topics

High Buck Hunt by jjhunter
[Today at 07:01:06 PM]


Wolves tree DNR worker in Okanogan county by Cougartail
[Today at 06:59:11 PM]


Chewuch Quailty Buck by westside bull
[Today at 06:57:02 PM]


Out of state mountain goat by Jpmiller
[Today at 06:52:02 PM]


Reloading for accuracy/consistency help by Yondering
[Today at 06:47:45 PM]


Anyone know what this is? by yorketransport
[Today at 06:46:34 PM]


Looking for .243 ammo by Angry Perch
[Today at 06:45:57 PM]


2018 Area 9 and 10 Summer Kings by Tbar
[Today at 06:44:33 PM]


Gunsmith in Snohomish County? by EscapeFrom206
[Today at 06:33:20 PM]


Free drift boat and trailer, in Sultan by TVHunts
[Today at 06:33:08 PM]


I need a Rem700, LA, Silver, aluminum BDL floor plate assembly. by Biggerhammer
[Today at 06:28:54 PM]


Places to go camping by SemperFidelis97
[Today at 06:07:03 PM]


new 257 caliber bullet by yorketransport
[Today at 05:21:12 PM]


Big bows by jackelope
[Today at 04:48:19 PM]


Pics of your backcountry camp by branches
[Today at 04:35:43 PM]


Looking for Giants! by Bwilliams1286
[Today at 04:35:29 PM]


Washington Pronghorn *update, fawns* by branches
[Today at 04:22:41 PM]


Advice related to Toyota Tundra Crew Cab 5.7 4x4 purchase by Bofire
[Today at 04:13:48 PM]


Nevada's New Trail Cam Law by Alpine Mojo
[Today at 04:09:14 PM]


Judge for side carry? by fly-by
[Today at 03:54:28 PM]