Tweeters,

The recent publicity about the destruction of the Red-tailed Hawk nest
adjacent to Central Park in New York City has underlined inadequacies
in the laws protecting raptor nests in the US-- or at least in the
interpretation of those laws.

Had a similar event occurred in Canada, it would probably have been
considered illegal, and there would have been at least a possibility
of prosecution of the persons responsible.

I am attaching a copy of a message I sent to the BIRDCHAT E-mail
group, which may interest those of you concerned about this issue.


Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus at telus.net


----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne C. Weber <contopus at telus.net>
To: BIRDCHAT <birdchat at listserv.arizona.edu>
Cc: BARRY KENT MCKAY <mimus at sympatico.ca>; MARCEL GAHBAUER
<marcel at migrationresearch.org>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:29 PM
Subject: Migratory Birds Legislation in the US and Canada


> Birdchatters,
>
> Recent messages from Barry Kent McKay, Marcel Gahbauer, and others
> indicate some confusion about legislation protecting migratory birds
> in the US and Canada.
>
> The Migratory Birds Convention is a treaty signed between the US and
> Canada in 1916. However, a treaty is meaningless unless implemented
by
> legislation on each side of the border.
>
> The Migratory Birds Convention has been implemented by the Migratory
> Bird Treaty Act in the US, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act in
> Canada. The Canadian act was amended in 1994, and the 1994 version
is
> the current one. The two pieces of legislation have similar, but not
> identical, provisions. Even the list of species protected is not
> identical in the two countries.
>
> The interpretation of the provisions respecting the destruction of
> nests of protected species has been different in the two countries.
It
> was my understanding that, in the US, protection has always been
> extended only to active, occupied nests (i.e., those containing eggs
> or young). In Canada, protection has generally been extended to
active
> and inactive nests of species which reuse their nests year after
year
> (e.g. raptors, herons, cormorants, Cliff and Barn Swallows. However,
> this is an interpretation only, subject to court decisions, and is
not
> spelled out in the legislation per se.
>
> In British Columbia, for example, application of this policy to
> provincial highways has resulted in a cessation of the formerly
> widespread practice of removing Cliff Swallow nest from highway
> bridges outside of the breeding season.
>
> In a nutshell, it appears that the destruction of Pale Male's nest,
> while not illegal in the US, would have been considered illegal in
> Canada, and could have been the subject of a prosecution.
>
> The US has taken a narrow interpretation of the provision protecting
> nests of protected species, while Canada has taken a broader
> interpretation (although this provision is still widely ignored--
> witness the thousands of nests of migratory birds destroyed every
> year, without permits, in logging operations). What is needed, it
> seems, is a broader interpretation of the U.S. legislation, or else
an
> amendment to the legislation that extends protection for nests of
some
> bird species (such as raptors) to the non-breeding season.
>
>
> Wayne C. Weber
> Delta, BC
> contopus at telus.net
>
>