Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 5286 | TRs

gb
  Top

Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 9:53 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 10:16 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 5153 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
Chief Joseph
  Top

Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 10:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10468 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 12:30 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6911 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 2:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16266 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 3:40 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6911 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 4:16 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RayD
the griz ate my pass



Joined: 20 Aug 2005
Posts: 1587 | TRs
Location: Vacaville
RayD
  Top

the griz ate my pass
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 6:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6911 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 7:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 132 | TRs

catsp
  Top

Member
PostWed Feb 05, 2020 7:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ignoring a flock of extraneous issues, it seems that there is a law that had a longstanding governmental agency interpretation that would include even the unintended and accidental killing of designated migratory birds as a criminal act. Apparently the agency liked this interpretation so it could use the law as a carrot and/or stick against certain industries, in furtherance of the protection of migratory (if not all) birds. Under the interpretation, it appears that (for example) if a protected bird flew into the grill of a car being driven down the highway, the driver could be charged with a criminal act (though there is nothing to indicate this ever happened). In 2017 the DOI changed its stance on the interpretation to be that the law's prohibitions do not include incidental killing.

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 5:04 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 5:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 16266 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 5:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6911 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 5:41 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11514 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Feb 06, 2020 6:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
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
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
  Happy Birthday moosefish!
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy