Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 3589 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
  Top

Faster than light
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 1:01 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Why do you think they re-wrote the law among all other priorities?  Concern over individual liberties?  The terms hoodwinked and bamboozled come to mind.

Probably to allow some factory to pollute some waterway used by migratory birds.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 133 | TRs

catsp
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 1:03 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
Why do you think they re-wrote the law among all other priorities?  Concern over individual liberties?  The terms hoodwinked and bamboozled come to mind.

As I understand it, the law was not in any way rewritten: the law is at it was. All that changed was how the related governmental agency is interpreting the reach and coverage of the law.

Were the reasons and intentions for doing so (altering the interpretation) good or bad? We can all have an opinion on that, though I find it more or less irrelevant to the issues I tried to address (i.e., is it correct?). But I'm certainly not pretending that I believe it was because people contacted their representatives to relate their fear over being charged with federal crimes for the incidental kills of their outdoor cats.
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: 16255 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 2:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
OK, so the law has simply been reinterpreted.  No individual liberties have actually been protected.  If you're worried 'bout them coming after you for incidental take I'd think you still need to be afraid, very afraid!

According to the opposition, this legal opinion prevents enforcement of all incidental take, removing incentives for companies to adopt practices that protect birds from threats such as oil waste pits. It also eliminates penalties for companies that kill substantial numbers of birds, including from large oil spills.
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
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 27 May 2005
Posts: 10453 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 2:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
The terms hoodwinked and bamboozled come to mind.

That is a given concerning anything having anything to do with Zinke or any of his co-conspirators.

This thread should be in Stewardship.

--------------
"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
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 133 | TRs

catsp
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 3:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
OK, so the law has simply been reinterpreted.  No individual liberties have actually been protected.  If you're worried 'bout them coming after you for incidental take I'd think you still need to be afraid, very afraid!

Why is there a need to completely ignore or mischaracterize what someone writes? I've tried very hard to be clear on the points I've tried to make (and what I'm not saying as well). Maybe my observations have merit, maybe they don't. But I'm perplexed by the insistence on mischaracterizing them or otherwise responding as if they're specious.

I specifically said (this will be the third time) that I had no fear of being prosecuted for accidentally and incidentally killing a bird (migratory or otherwise), whether by my soaring 300 yard drive on the golf course or the hot, unforgiving grill of my Ford Escort GT.

As a general proposition, however, I am not particularly comfortable with laws that are so broadly written that it's analogous to something I once heard a military service member say: kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Whether God (or god, whichever you prefer) having that sort of "prosecutorial discretion" is a good idea is one thing, but I'm simply not comfortable with a prosecutor here on earth having it. And this observation stands completely separate from any issues with the MBTA in particular.

As far as the re-interpretation of the MBTA not coming to the rescue of individual liberties, again, that's not been my point. I simply noted that IMO the text of the MBTA (at least the portions I've read, and I don't claim to have read it in it's entirety) don't appear to support the pre-2017 interpretation (as a matter of words, logic or reasonableness IMO). It's not a matter of whether I wished it would or not, as I was only opining on whether the actual text did so.

Tom wrote:
According to the opposition, this legal opinion prevents enforcement of all incidental take, removing incentives for companies to adopt practices that protect birds from threats such as oil waste pits. It also eliminates penalties for companies that kill substantial numbers of birds, including from large oil spills.

Maybe that's all true, and it may very well be a terrible thing. But as I've also stated before (again, this will be the third time), I'm not against holding industry responsible for the incidental effects of their activities, including incidental bird kills (and corollarily, helping to prevent and mitigate such harm in the first place). And I don't find that in any way inconsistent with my opinion that the actual MBTA as written does not provide the government with the grounds for doing so. To add to a phrase I understand comes from Maine, sometimes "you can't get there from here," no matter how important it is get there.

For those that haven't, skim through the "re-interpretation" of the MBTA at issue (DOI memorandum M-37050) and see whether you think its makes sense. Frankly, it's interesting if nothing else.


For whatever reason it appears that sometimes people simply decide that anyone expressing an opposing or unpopular opinion is necessarily making specious arguments or "just being a troll." Seriously, if you can go back and read what I've written in this thread and fairly judge it as meritless trolling, please just ban me.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!



Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16235 | TRs

Slugman
  Top

It’s a Slugfest!
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 4:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Holy cow, you write a lot to say nothing, or at least nothing that makes sense. Look at this utter nonsense you wrote: “Some people are apparently okay with an incredibly over broad (interpretation of) law that criminalizes their own behavior because they're confident they won't actually be prosecuted.”  This is false, as had been pointed out to you repeatedly. You also keep saying that the previous interpretation of the law criminalized every bird kill, also ludicrous.

Your pearl-clutching, breathless attacks on the old interpretation of the law shows you to either be brainwashed yourself, or you are trying to brainwash others. This change was an anti-environmental “gotcha” done to benefit business and be a slap in the face to anyone who cares about birds.

--------------
“The jerking motion of a knee does not reflect the operation of a mind”  Slugman, January 24th 2020
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: 16255 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 4:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
catsp, I don't believe anyone has called you a troll.

Ultimately it will be decided by the courts.

I'll go ahead and move this to stewardship.
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: 11512 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 4:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Holy cow, you write a lot to say nothing, or at least nothing that makes sense. Look at this utter nonsense you wrote: “Some people are apparently okay with an incredibly over broad (interpretation of) law that criminalizes their own behavior because they're confident they won't actually be prosecuted.”  This is false, as had been pointed out to you repeatedly. .

It was claimed to be false, it was never actually shown to be false." Pointing out" what is not actually shown, doesn't count.

This is similar to the fake debunkings which aren't, since they never actually falsify the contentions they claim to be debunking.

--------------
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: 11512 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 4:53 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
catsp, I don't believe anyone has called you a troll.

Ultimately it will be decided by the courts.

I'll go ahead and move this to stewardship.

I was going to put it here in the first place, but then since it was not lands related I did not.

--------------
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
catsp
Member
Member


Joined: 15 Jun 2017
Posts: 133 | TRs

catsp
  Top

Member
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 5:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Slugman wrote:
Holy cow, you write a lot to say nothing, or at least nothing that makes sense. Look at this utter nonsense you wrote: “Some people are apparently okay with an incredibly over broad (interpretation of) law that criminalizes their own behavior because they're confident they won't actually be prosecuted.”  This is false, as had been pointed out to you repeatedly. You also keep saying that the previous interpretation of the law criminalized every bird kill, also ludicrous.

I'm not sure what you are saying has been pointed out as false. Do you mean whether some have expressed the sentiment that even if the pre-2017 interpretation technically included, for example, incidental take by your car, it's nothing to worry about because it's not likely anyone would ever be charged? I believe people have expressed exactly that sentiment in this thread.

Or do you mean that the pre-2017 interpretation does not criminalize virtually any incidental take? To be fair, I pointed out myself that that was somewhat of an overstatement because not all birds are protected, and not every bird kill results from something directly traceable to a human. But for the most part, it seems to me that the pre-2017 interpretation does criminalize most incidental take (including, for easy example, by a person's car). This is from the withdrawn January 2017 memo (M-37041):

"In sum, the MBTA's broad prohibition on taking and killing migratory birds by any means and in any manner includes incidental taking and killing. Moreover, the prohibitions of the MBTA, as informed by the underlying treaties, are not limited to hunting, poaching, or any particular factual context; rather, they extend generally to unauthorized take or killing of migratory birds, including take that is incidental to industrial or commercial activities. The MBTA imposes strict liability (with narrow exceptions) for misdemeanor violations resulting from unauthorized take, incidental or otherwise. Therefore, the government need not show that a defendant willfully or intentionally took or killed birds to prove a violation of the MBTA. Liability under the MBTA is bounded by limits of proximate causation, however, and applies to "direct" take where there is a close causal connection between an action and its effect of taking migratory birds."

And:

"Based on the analysis above, I conclude that the MBTA' s prohibitions on taking and killing migratory birds apply broadly to any activity, subject to the limits of proximate causation, and are not limited to certain factual contexts."

In other words, incidental take by habitat modification, not covered. But anything with a direct causal link? Criminal act.

Slugman wrote:
Your pearl-clutching, breathless attacks on the old interpretation of the law shows you to either be brainwashed yourself, or you are trying to brainwash others. This change was an anti-environmental “gotcha” done to benefit business and be a slap in the face to anyone who cares about birds.

Again with the claim that I have expressed any concern with being prosecuted for accidentally killing a migratory bird that happens to stand under my garage door as it closes. For the fourth time, I have no such concern.
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: 16255 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostFri Feb 07, 2020 6:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MG, with the "What does it mean for you and I" nonsense of the opinion piece which only serves to obfuscate I am not surprised it didn't strike you as fitting within the parameters of stewardship.  If you want to foster genuine discussion why not lead with a more balanced article?  I found this to be a good read:

https://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Taking-A-Peck-Out-of-Protection.pdf
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
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 577 | TRs

Sculpin
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 7:40 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
I was going to put it here in the first place, but then since it was not lands related I did not.

That is the logical part of your brain, doing its business.  Keep working on it, you will figure it out.   wink.gif

--------------
Between every two pines is a doorway to the new world. - John Muir
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: 11512 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 10:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Tom wrote:
MG, with the "What does it mean for you and I" nonsense of the opinion piece which only serves to obfuscate I am not surprised it didn't strike you as fitting within the parameters of stewardship.  If you want to foster genuine discussion why not lead with a more balanced article?  I found this to be a good read:

https://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Taking-A-Peck-Out-of-Protection.pdf

You made it very clear you wanted apolitical lands only stuff here following the conniptions over Voldemort, or that was my take anyway. You even specifically added lands to the title. So OK, whatever is related to stewardship and is not just lands I will now post in this forum.

It's interesting that you gripe about what you imply is not neutral, then present an advocacy piece you claim will 'foster' conversation most likely because you agree with it's premises.

--------------
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: 16255 | TRs

Tom
  Top

Admin
PostSat Feb 08, 2020 12:37 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
If it's politics with a tie in to public lands it goes here.  Otherwise if it's politics it doesn't go anywhere.  Not that hard.

Sorry you didn't like that read.  What issues do you have with it?  Factual inaccuracies?  What is the premise and what do you disagree with?  I didn't say it was neutral but would certainly say it's more balanced than the "apolitical" piece you thought was appropriate for the saloon.  uhh.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
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Federal Prosecution for hitting a bird with your car?
  Happy Birthday termite, Type E!
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