Migratory Bird

Summary: This case centers on the Trump Administration's new interpretation of incidental takings under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In December 2017, the Principal Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a memorandum that countered almost 50 years of the agency’s interpretation of “takings” and “killings” under the MBTA (the "Jorjani Opinion"). According to the DOI in that opinion, the MBTA does not prohibit incidental takes or kills because the statute applies only to activities specifically aimed at birds. Environmental interest groups and various states brought three now-consolidated actions to vacate the memorandum and subsequent guidance issued in reliance on the memorandum. Both parties moved for summary judgment. In essence, the question before the court is whether DOI’s interpretation of the MBTA must be set aside as contrary to law under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or upheld as a valid exercise of agency authority. The court first observed that, from the early 1970s until 2017, the DOI interpreted the MBTA to prohibit incidental takes and kills, imposing liability for activities and hazards that led to the deaths of protected birds, irrespective of whether the activities targeted birds or were intended to take or kill birds. To conserve migratory birds and ensure compliance with the MBTA’s prohibition on “incidental take,” the DOI's Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) used a range of strategies: sending companies notice of the risks their facilities and equipment posed to migratory birds; issuing industry guidance; informally negotiating remediation efforts; and issuing permits authorizing takes. In fact, the court noted that the agency prioritized a cooperative approach with industry over enforcement actions. In 2015, the DOI formalized this approach by undergoing a rulemaking process regulating incidental take. In early 2017, the DOI's Solicitor then issued a memorandum that reaffirmed the long-standing interpretation that the MBTA prohibited incidental take that became known as the "Tomkins Opinion." Once presidential administrations changed and Tomkins departed, the new Principal Deputy Solicitor issued a new memorandum that stated any agency comments, recommendations, or actions not be based on the principle that the MBTA prohibited incidental take (the Jorjani Opinion). This triggered the instant lawsuits by conservation organizations and several states. On July 31, 2019, the lower court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated standing and denied the DOI's motion to dismiss. On appeal here, this court first noted that both parties agree with longstanding precedent that the MBTA's misdemeanor provision creates strict liability. In contrast, the Jorjani Opinion contends that the criminal penalty provisions under the MBTA is limited to only acts directed at birds and those activities whose purpose is to "render an animal subject to human control" like hunting or capturing. In reviewing the Jorjani Opinion under the lessened deference standard afforded by administrative law, this court found the DOI overstated the any conflicts in interpretation of the MBTA among circuit courts (a "dramatized representation"). In addition, the court found the Jorjani Opinion "is a recent and sudden departure from long-held agency positions backed by over forty years of consistent enforcement practices." The court found the Jorjani Opinion was an unpersuasive interpretation of the MBTA's unambiguous prohibition on the killing of birds and is contrary to the plain language of the law itself. Such an interpretation runs contrary to legislative history, decades of enforcement practices by the DOI, and caselaw. Because the agency's action was held unlawful under the APA, the court found the only appropriate remedy was vacatur. Thus, Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment were granted, and Interior’s motion was denied.

Summary: This summary briefly covers the factors contributing to the feral cat crisis. It also outlines the factors that may result in population increases of free-roaming cats. The summary then concludes by exploring the shift in focus, which now views them as "community cats," and how this enhanced caretaking has led to unintended predation on bird populations and competition with other native mammals.

Summary: This overview outlines the factors that have contributed to the cat population crisis and resulting feral cat concerns. It discusses the approaches used in different states to manage feral cat populations, and how a recent trend is to view them as "community cats" instead of "feral cats." The controversy surrounding this shift in caring for community cat populations, and the resulting impact on wild bird populations, is also explored.

Summary: This paper begins with some of the biological factors of cats that allow them to be tenacious predators. It then analyzes the approaches used to manage feral cat populations. Additionally, both applicable state and federal laws are discussed. The discussion focuses particularly on the conflict between federal wildlife protection laws and efforts to control feral cats that allow these animals to roam freely. The paper concludes with a sampling of legislative and practical solutions implemented in communities to address the inherent conflict.

Summary: This Connecticut chapter deals with wild birds. Section 26-92 states that no person shall catch, kill or purchase or attempt to catch, kill or purchase, sell, offer or expose for sale or have in possession, living or dead, any wild bird other than a game bird, or purchase or attempt to purchase, sell, offer or expose for sale or have in possession any part of any such bird or of the plumage thereof except as acquired under the provisions of this chapter. In addition, the hunting or taking of bald eagles and two species of swans is prohibited.

Summary: Approved and adopted the "CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS" signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, into the Bolivian legal system.

Summary: These Regulations prohibit the deliberate taking, injuring, killing, disturbing, possession, or trading of certain wild species (as scheduled) in Northern Ireland. It is also an offence to take the nests or eggs of wild birds.

Summary: Friends of Animals, a non-profit animal advocacy organization, sued the United States Fish and Wildlife Service when the Service began issuing permits that allowed the scientific taking of barred owls, both lethally and non-lethally, for the purpose of preserving the habitat of the northern spotted owl, a threatened species. The two species compete with each other in the same territory within Oregon and Northern California. Friends of Animals alleges that these permits are a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which limits the removal of birds from their habitat only for scientific purposes. The theory set forth by the plaintiff is referred to as the ‘same-species theory,’ meaning that the removal of a bird must be for the scientific purposes pertaining to the very species that was taken. This theory is based on language found in the Mexico Convention which is referenced in the MBTA. The lower court granted FWS' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, holding that the plain text of the MBTA and Mexico Convention do not demand the same-species theory in the removal of a bird. Specifically, the court concluded that the “used for scientific purposes” exception in Article II(A) of the Mexico Convention includes taking birds to study whether their absence benefits another protected bird species.

Summary: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) has proven invaluable in minimizing the destruction of the 240 avian species listed by its enforcement agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as “endangered or threatened” or “birds of conservation concern.” Recently, however, the Act is faced with a new challenge: How can it continue to achieve its objective when a highly desirable domestic source of sustainable energy—wind power—is experiencing unprecedented growth? Ever-larger wind projects propelled by giant turbines have become a serious danger to the existence of migratory birds and their natural habitats. Yet most policy makers strongly welcome and support continued expansion of wind power, and are reluctant to permit impediments to halt or restrict its growth. The growing conflict between the goals of protecting migratory birds and producing more wind power should be reconciled. This Article proposes three basic policy revisions: (1) authorization for the FWS to issue incidental take permits to wind power developers; (2) creation of a uniform standard for assessing avian impacts; and (3) amendment of the MBTA to allow for civil sanctions and citizen suits. Although “big wheels in the sky” must keep on turning and expanding to help reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources, this worthy objective must be pursued without weakening federal protection of migratory birds.