Judge Strikes Down Changes to Migratory Bird Protections

A federal judge at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled against the Trump Administration’s effort to narrow the reach of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. A 2017 legal opinion by the Department of the Interior solicitor’s office concluded that incidental bird take resulting from an otherwise lawful activity is not prohibited under MBTA and that the protections only apply to the intentional taking of a bird. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the term “take” means “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect,” with “incidental” take referring to an unintentional taking. The 2017 opinion has been widely criticized by conservation groups. Lawsuits challenging the opinion, filed by the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and a coalition of states led by New York, alleged the Interior Department violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted the new interpretation of the law. “At the behest of the oil and gas industry, and with no consideration of the resulting impacts to migratory birds, the [2017] Opinion reinterpreted the MBTA to exempt effectively all industrial activities from the Act’s reach,” the challengers wrote in a legal brief. On August 11, 2020, Judge Valerie Caproni ruled to vacate the 2017 opi...
Source: Public Policy Reports - Category: Biology Authors: Source Type: news