 |
Animal Extermination
(cont.)
. . . . . .
However, nowhere in the four treaties to protect migratory birds is there any distinction between “native” and “non-native.” To the contrary, the treaties were intended to protect birds who move between countries, not just native birds. This legislation undermines the very purpose of the migratory bird treaties--to protect birds across the range of their migratory routes.
In essence, the bill would eliminate a clear, closed list of species that has worked for decades, and replace it with a vague, ill-defined standard of “native” that will force courts to sort out complicated historical arguments about which bird species were here first, which species deserve to live, and which species should be systematically exterminated.
• • • •
• •
“This legislation undermines
the very purpose of migratory bird treaties--to protect birds across
the range of their migratory routes.” |
In fact, the U.S. courts have already weighed in on the issue. In 2001, the federal court in Washington carefully reviewed the question of whether non-native species such as mute swans should be excluded from protection, and ruled in favor of their inclusion--because the treaties specify “all swans,” not just “native” ones. Rather than appeal that decision, the Bush administration is hoping Congress will override the court and allow the indiscriminate killing of birds--a strategy that is legally flawed and sets a dangerous precedent.
The migratory birds covered by U.S. law are defined in the four treaties, and those lists are the product of careful negotiations between the executives of the signatory nations. The U.S. government must execute the treaties, and all domestic legislation must be consistent with them. The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act, however, tries to amend the terms of the treaties--and thus unilaterally renegotiate the terms of the treaties--by redefining what birds are covered. It’s the equivalent of Congress trying to pass a law unilaterally redefining what commercial transactions are covered by NAFTA.
Some of the species that would lose protection are even covered by other international agreements. For example, the Nicobar pigeon and yellow-billed cardinal are considered imperiled under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Guam swiftlet, swan goose, yellow cardinal and blue-headed quail-dove are all listed as endangered under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
These species need global cooperation to survive. If this legislation is approved, birds who are protected in other nations under domestic law could be killed when traveling through the U.S., undermining diligent efforts abroad to protect these same species at other times of the year. The bill is anti-conservation and could place imperiled species at risk.
Here in the U.S., we already have provisions for dealing with birds in specific locations who cause specific damage to agriculture or the environment. It’s just that environmental groups and
wildlife agencies have a knee-jerk reaction to certain “non-native” species, such as the mute swan, but cannot point to any real damage being caused. They want Congress to write a blank check to kill dozens of species at any time and any place, regardless of whether they are causing any actual problems.
With the proliferation of cell phone towers, chronic air and water pollution, and ever diminishing habitats, birds face enough challenges in our perilous world. They don’t need environmental groups lining up against them, and they don’t need the carpet of international protection pulled out from under them. The U.S. Congress should reject the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act and leave our migratory bird treaties alone.
Previous page in this
article
1 | 2
|
