Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 10:53 am 
Some news that those who aren't whacko would like to know about: https://www.audubon.org/news/north-america-has-lost-more-1-4-birds-last-50-years-new-study-says Most of us care and are conscientious, some aren't for some unknown reason.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 11:16 am 
Not sure who those people are, but OK. Of course, the definition of 'caring' is in play as well. For many, 'caring' seems to solely be defined as 'agrees with me'.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2007
Posts: 7676 | TRs | Pics
Location: Verlot-Priest Lake
Chief Joseph
Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 11:42 am 
I will brake for Turkeys!....And all other living beings as well, or swerve, whichever is applicable. Even Tarantulas.

Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 1:30 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
For many, 'caring' seems to solely be defined as 'agrees with me'.
up.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif lol.gif

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 3:31 pm 
American Bird Conservancy wrote:
At 100, Successful Law is Under Attack In a legal opinion issued December 2017, the Administration abruptly reversed decades of government policy and practice — by both Democratic and Republican administrations — on the implementation and enforcement of the MBTA. The Act's prohibition on the killing or "taking" of migratory birds has long been understood to extend to “incidental take” — meaning unintentional, but predictable and avoidable, killing from threats such as oil pits that trap birds, and tall towers and power lines responsible for many bird collisions. Under the Administration's revised interpretation, the MBTA's protections will apply only to activities that purposefully kill birds. Any incidental take — no matter how inevitable, avoidable, or devastating its impact on birds — is now immune from enforcement under the law.
So incidental killings were prosecuted under prior rules -- but only for industrial operations such as oil refineries, wind turbines, power lines and such. I can find no evidence of cases being made against individuals for collisions with automobiles as purported by the article in the OP -- which is also misleading in that the image shown is of non-protected species of bird. I guess facts don't matter to some.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 4:40 pm 
Reviewing his articles for that "news" site, I wonder if Kip holds himself to his own standards?
Quote:
I have been a radio journalist — and I assure you, even in the wild days of the late-1960s, my News Director would have pulled my entire show in a minute had I done any report as intellectually sloppy as ... Even having finished writing this, I still cannot fathom the mindset that would allow a professional science writer/journalist to commit this sort of illogical, seemingly intentional, misrepresentation or how his editors could allow it be published.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 5:16 pm 
The Media Bias website rates the WattsUpWithThat website of the linked article in the OP as a "CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE" site. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/watts-up-with-that/

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
RayD
the griz ate my pass



Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 1763 | TRs | Pics
Location: Vacaville
RayD
the griz ate my pass
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 7:20 pm 
Of course the definition of 'real science' is in play as well. For many 'real science' seems to solely be defined as 'agrees with me'.

don't believe everything you think
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 8:00 pm 
RayD wrote:
Of course the definition of 'real science' is in play as well. For many 'real science' seems to solely be defined as 'agrees with me'.
That is pseudo-science at it's finest.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 6:04 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
So incidental killings were prosecuted under prior rules -- but only for industrial operations such as oil refineries, wind turbines, power lines and such. I can find no evidence of cases being made against individuals for collisions with automobiles as purported by the article in the OP -- which is also misleading in that the image shown is of non-protected species of bird. I guess facts don't matter to some.
The article didn't claim anyone had been charged for auto collisions, only that the law as written had zero exceptions. And that this has been reformed. You're more than welcome to demonstrate who facts don't matter to, by showing assertions which are non factual. Rather than merely implying them.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 6:07 pm 
catsp wrote:
It seems to me that it misses the point to make this about whether migratory (and other) birds should be protected. It's more whether the previous, expansive interpretation of the law is a legitimate or proper or whatever way to do it. I'd suggest not. It's entirely too overbroad with the behavior it criminalizes, and I don't think that the answer is to rely on a wing and a prayer in the form of prosecutorial discretion.
Exactly. The answer is not to argue 'trust us we won't use it', it's to reform the law so that neither trust nor prosecutorial whim are factors.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 6:13 pm 
Once you peel back the layers it's fairly clear it has nothing to do with individuals, the title of this thread, the title of the article you linked to, or the premise of the article. More about industry lobbying for fewer restrictions. Whether you agree with the law or not, Sluggo nailed it. Thinly veiled politics. But it's what you do. rolleyes.gif

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 6:41 pm 
MtnGoat wrote:
You're more than welcome to demonstrate who facts don't matter to, by showing assertions which are non factual. Rather than merely implying them.
In your OP you cited the article which included the text:
Quote:
The turkey is one of the 2,194 birds that are currently covered
Except that turkeys aren't on the list of protected species.
Quote:
Birds That Are and Aren't Protected Contrary to popular belief, all bird species are not protected under the Migratory Bird Act. Birds that are considered non-native, human-introduced species (whether they were deliberately or unintentionally introduced) are not protected. Furthermore, native birds that are members of unprotected bird families are also not protected. Invasive birds such as the house sparrow and European starling are not protected, but neither are many game birds such as wild turkeys, different types of grouse, and different ptarmigan species. Birds that have been introduced to North America, even though they may be established and are not invasive, are also not protected, such as the Himalayan snowcock, different myna species, and the Eurasian tree sparrow.
https://www.thespruce.com/migratory-bird-act-386486

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 7:21 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
In your OP you cited the article which included the text:
RandyHiker wrote:
Except that turkeys aren't on the list of protected species.
RandyHiker wrote:
https://www.thespruce.com/migratory-bird-act-386486
[ Correction (1430 ET 4 Feb 2020): The car-bird collision involved a turkey which, it turns out, is NOT on the MBTA list of protected birds. The turkey vulture is on the list. The error is mine. If it had been a sparrow or a robin, however, the crime would have been committed. ][/quote]

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 7:25 pm 
Tom wrote:
Once you peel back the layers it's fairly clear it has nothing to do with individuals, the title of this thread, the title of the article you linked to, or the premise of the article. More about industry lobbying for fewer restrictions. Whether you agree with the law or not, Sluggo nailed it. Thinly veiled politics. But it's what you do. rolleyes.gif
If politics concerning regulation where an issue, I'd expect an entire section of the site to be locked. It's pretty clear once you peel back the layers that the chief objection to some threads is more of a personal issue, seems to me. After all, we first saw a complain about their graphic on the basis of a principle I have never seen applied anywhere on this site, ever, regardless of source. Then, we have this claim that discussing regulation is thinly veiled politics...which is what any regulatory discussion is.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum