Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CALBIRDS] FW: Migratory Bird Bill

Expand Messages
  • Kimball Garrett
    Calbirders: Maybe this isn t the best forum for this discussion, but it is important that California birders understand what is behind the bills in question
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Calbirders:

      Maybe this isn't the best forum for this discussion, but it is important
      that California birders understand what is behind the bills in question
      (H.R. 4114 and S.2547). These (identical) bills were introduced strictly
      for the purpose of clarifying that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act should NOT
      be applied to non-native, introduced bird species. Such interpretation is
      critical if environmentally damaging invasive species such as the Mute Swan
      are to be controlled. The legislation is necessary because, amazingly, a
      judge actually interpreted the MBTA as protecting Mute Swans in North
      America, which runs 100% counter to the letter and intent of the law.

      The only opposition to these bills is coming from animal rights
      organizations concerned about protecting individual animals and clearly
      unconcerned about ecological and biodiversity issues. For an example of
      such arguments, see the Humane Society's rant against H. R. 4114
      at: http://www.fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=1446&table=documents
      The Humane Society and other organizations opposing these bills point out
      that 94 bird species will no longer receive MBTA protection: there's a
      list on the link above and it's quite informative -- ALL of the species are
      non-native, introduced exotics! So if you think that Rock Pigeons, Mute
      Swans, and other such non-natives are more deserving of protection in North
      America than the native species they are impacting, you too will be opposed
      to these bills. On the bright side, if these bills fail, maybe we can
      finally get some of those scarce Fish and Wildlife dollars applied to
      reversing the tragic declines of Spotted Doves, House Sparrows, and other
      such species.

      I can only imagine that Sen. Boxer (who is usually a true ally of
      environmentalists) is being unduly swayed by a few powerful and vocal
      animal rights organizations and is not hearing from conservationists,
      birders, and those striving to protect America's biodiversity. It would be
      appropriate to write her and urge her to support S.2547

      -- Kimball
      *****************************************************
      Kimball L. Garrett
      Ornithology Collections Manager
      Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
      900 Exposition Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA
      213-763-3368
      213-746-2999 FAX
      kgarrett@...
    • Kimball Garrett
      ... Sorry to prolong this.... Obviously I meant that the above site was from the Fund For Animals; the Humane Society has a similar page with almost identical
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:48 AM 7/1/2004 -0700, Kimball Garrett wrote:
        >Calbirders:
        >For an example of
        >such arguments, see the Humane Society's rant against H. R. 4114
        >at: http://www.fund.org/library/documentViewer.asp?ID=1446&table=documents


        Sorry to prolong this....

        Obviously I meant that the above site was from the Fund For Animals; the
        Humane Society has a similar page with almost identical arguments against
        H. R. 4114. Sorry for the confusion.

        -- Kimball
        *****************************************************
        Kimball L. Garrett
        Ornithology Collections Manager
        Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
        900 Exposition Blvd.
        Los Angeles, CA 90007 USA
        213-763-3368
        213-746-2999 FAX
        kgarrett@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.