House Passes Provision to End All Migratory Bird Protections in the United States

[n2doc]

Andrew Wetzler’s Blog:

Spring is finally here, and with it the return of birds to backyards and playgrounds across America. So, naturally, it is also the perfect time for Congressional Republicans to completely suspend one of the main laws protecting them.

First passed in 1918, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is one of America's original conservation laws. It protects familiar visitors like cardinals and chickadees; raptors such as bald eagles and prairie falcons, and, of course, the many ducks and other waterfowl that sportsmen treasure.

Last night, reportedly without a recorded vote, the House of Representatives Commerce, Justice, Science Committee included a rider, offered by Congressman Duncan (R-SC), in the Department of Commerce's and Department of Justice's budget appropriations bill that would prohibit the federal government from prosecuting anyone from violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Here is the exact language:


Yep, forget the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (without the possibility of enforcement, laws don't mean much, do they?). If Representative Duncan gets his way it's open season for birds across the country. Because, really, who needs hummingbirds or eagles?

UPDATE: My original post was mistaken. This amendment was, in fact, added to the appropriations bill by the entire House on a voice vote. It's now up to the Senate and the President to prevent this provision from becoming law.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/awetzler/no_birds_for_you_house_committ.html

[cali]

1. appalling

[shenmue]

2. Oh, shit

[In_The_Wind]

3. Darn it. We need those birds alive!

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Godammitalltohell

[kewhawaii]

5. My first thought was

...they want to toss a bone to bird killers, sometimes known as hunters. But I think this is not about indifference to birds as much as it is the unending effort to undermine the authority of the fed govt. Conservatives would say that each state is free to pass animal conservation laws as it sees fit. Sometimes the type of legislation and the issues Republicans go after look capricious and almost random, but the underlying theme is to subvert federal control, undermine laws they don't like, and promote states' rights. It has always been thus.

[n2doc]

6. I'm thinking it has more to do with mining, oil, gas and or cattle grazing

Get rid of protections of their habitats.

[HereSince1628]

14. Yes, knocking down potential arguments for resource extraction on public lands

including parks, national monuments, and conservations areas.

Can't let some neotropical dickey bird stand in the way of corporate profits.

[enough]

12. Many hunters and fishers are very active conservationists.

Check out Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited. Both those organizations have been dedicated, active participants in significant conservation issues in my area. It's patronizing to assume that people who hunt are indifferent to wildlife and wildlife habitat. In fact, many of them are extremely knowledgeable and concerned.

That said, I agree about the "underlying theme" you mention.

[X_Digger]

13. Those "bird killers" who have contributed more than $2,000,000,000.00 to expand their habitat?

More than the sierra club, more than ducks unlimited..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman%E2%80%93Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

[MohRokTah]

7. .

[treestar]

8. Bizarre

Why not just repeal it? How odd they are making a law not to use funds to prosecute anyone under a law.

Maybe they are making a statement about President Obama not deporting people?

[hifiguy]

9. Why?

[justhanginon]

10. Keep the birds and get rid of the

congressional republicans hereinafter referred to as "those despicable cretins". How is it not possible to not hate these filthy ogres? They must lay awake in bed at night and think of ways to be as offensive as possible and how to bring harm to anyone in this country with any bit of moral character.
I'm to the point where I avoid friends that are republicans just because of their right wing views. We had declared somewhat of a truce some time ago but I just cannot deal with knowing what they stand for and for whom they vote anymore. I don't like the feeling but ........

[Brother Buzz]

11. Why am I reminded of Missouri v. Holland from my constitunal law classes?

We were slicing and dicing this forty years ago. I hope a current legal bagel can shed some light on what might have changed.

Brief Fact Summary. Missouri wanted to prevent US game warden Holland from enforcing Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (the Treaty). It claimed the Treaty infringed on Missouri’s 10th Amendment right against federal intrusion and that Missouri has a pecuniary interest as owners of the birds within its borders. The District Court dismissed the suit and the state appealed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Treaties take precedence over any conflicting state law (regardless of whether the treaty came before or after the enactment of the state law). A federal law can trump an earlier rule in treaty if it is clear that it is meant to do so, or the provisions cannot be fairly reconciled. If the treaty comes later it can trump federal law even if federal law is inconsistent. The last will of the sovereign controls.

Facts. In 1916, the US and Great Britain signed a treaty protecting migratory birds that were important as a source of food and in controlling harmful insects. The birds traveled through Canada and parts of the US but were in danger of extermination. The Migratory Bird Act was passed to carry out the terms of the treaty. Missouri objected because an earlier act of Congress that attempted, by itself and not in pursuance of a treaty, to regulate killing migratory birds within the states was held unconstitutional in district court. Missouri argued that because Congress had no power to pass this law without the treaty, they should gain power because they are enforcing a treaty.

Issue. Can Congress pass legislation to enforce a treaty which it could not pass without the treaty?

Held. Justice Holmes opinion: Yes. District Court judgment affirmed.
The state’s claim of sovereign power over possessions is not stronger than the authority a treaty is granted under the Constitution. The birds are not in the possession of anyone and possession is the beginning of ownership. Under Article 6, treaties, the Constitution, and laws of the US made in pursuance thereof are the supreme laws of the land. If the treaty is valid then there is no dispute about the validity of the statute that is to execute the treaty.
The national interest is keeping migratory birds is high because they are a food supply and also protect forests and corps. The birds are only transitory within Missouri and have no permanent habitat there.

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-cohen/the-scope-of-national-power/missouri-v-holland/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Got to keep them damned illegal alien birds out of 'Murka!

[newfie11]

16. What possible reason excuse could they have except insanity

Or money or just mean, hateful, vindictive, and stupidity!

[Fred Sanders]

17. ALEC's in the dark of the night cut, paste, insert last second laws that was never debated, it is their trademark.

Why is this even allowed to happen, it is an abomination of democracy, and it is happening everywhere, laws being passed with no notice to citizens elected representatives?

[NCarolinawoman]

18. I used that law to stop a bratty little kid from shooting wood peckers.

This is in suburban Raleigh.

He was about 9 years old and had been given a new BB gun. He was shooting any woodpecker in site. He shot a downy woodpecker in My yard. Soooo, I told him all about the migratory songbird act.

I said if he didn't quit, I would report him to the federal government and his parents would have to pay a $700 fine. Never saw him with the gun again.

He told me he didn't like woodpeckers because they killed trees!!!!

[Gloria]

19. I can't see how I could hate the shitheads anymore than I do now...

And I mean I HATE THEM!