NEW YORK – The Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of the first environmental laws in the country, turned 100 this week – but the protection it provides is in serious jeopardy.
Many states have named this the "Year of the Bird" in recognition of the centennial. But the U.S. Interior Department has said the legal penalties in the Act apply only to intentional killings.
Bob Dreher, vice president for conservation with Defenders of Wildlife, points out that the MBTA has been vitalin protecting millions of birds a year from industrial activities that cause their unintended but foreseeable deaths.
That includes oil spills and the oil industry practice of maintaining large, open oil pits and tanks that birds mistake for water.
"There can be thousands, tens of thousands of birds that will get killed in a single large oil pit or oil tank,” says Dreher. “And it's really simple common sense to cover those tanks or to put a netting over them to keep the birds from landing on them."
The Interior Department has told federal wildlife enforcement agencies that the MBTA no longer applies to actions not specifically intended to kill birds.
New York is a major crossroads for migratory birds. Now the Trump administration wants to allow oil drilling in the state's coastal waters.
Ana Paula Tavares – executive director, Audubon New York and Audubon Connecticut – notes that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill killed tens of thousands of birds.
"There was about $100 million in investment in restoring bird habitat that would have not been available if it was not for the MBTA," says Travares.
Seventeen former top Interior Department officials from almost every presidential administration since the early 1970s have repudiated the new interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Though the Interior Department's actions could be reversed by Congress or a change in the administration, Dreher says that could take months or years.
"In the meantime, birds are at risk and so, we're doing the only thing we can to try to turn this back as quickly as we can – and that is to ask the court to reverse it," says Dreher.
A coalition of groups, including the Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife, has filed a federal lawsuit in New York challenging the elimination of MBTA protections for birds.
get more stories like this via email
After years of trying and failing, Indiana lawmakers have put bobcats in the crosshairs.
The decision forces the Indiana Department of Natural Resources to create the hunting season framework and ignited fierce debate among lawmakers, wildlife advocates and hunters regarding the necessity and ethics of targeting Indiana's only native wild cat species.
Samantha Chapman, Indiana state director for The Humane Society of the United States, argued the bobcat population is still in the process of recovering in Indiana.
"Throughout the committee process, it was very clear that the hunter and trapping lobby had a lot to do with this bill," Chapman asserted. "Folks have even mentioned wanting to eat bobcats, which to me seems absolutely preposterous."
Chapman stressed experts need scientific data before targeting the wild cats. Proponents claim they are having issues with disappearing cottontail rabbits and said the bobcat population is getting out of control, especially in southern Indiana.
Sen. Scott Baldwin, R-Noblesville, authored the bill. He said the DNR has many people with varying opinions, and they sometimes need to be nudged.
Ernie Nichols, a member of the Indiana State Trappers Association, encouraged lawmakers to eat bobcat meat.
"First off, tastes great. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to eat it but it's delicious," Nichols stated. "Second off, on the state DNR website from calendar year '22 to '23 there has been a 118% increase in confirmed bobcat sightings."
Opponents claim hunters want to take the cats for the fur or a trophy and argued wildlife belongs to all Hoosiers and should be held in public trust. The DNR has remained neutral throughout the contentious debate and is tasked with creating the new season to hunt and trap bobcats, possibly as soon as July 2025.
get more stories like this via email
A Utah wildlife expert considers wild animal poaching to be a significant problem in the Beehive State, following several incidents of game animals being killed and then left to waste.
According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, four deer were killed in the Woodland Hills area of Utah County late last year. The heads were removed from each deer, and the carcasses were left. More recently, the division discovered a cow elk and 18 geese dead in Emery County.
Capt. Chad Bettridge, law enforcement officer for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, said the hunters responsible for these killings could be charged with a felony.
"Three very different circumstances and potentially even more than that," Bettridge noted. "We are not 100% sure that all the deer in Utah County were tied together, but they were in such a location and were similar in circumstance that it does kind of feel like they were maybe done by the same people, or at least related."
Bettridge encouraged anyone with information which could be useful to contact the division by using their law enforcement app. It allows you to send text messages, photos and GPS locations of any situation you think might be illegal. You can also use their 'turn in a poacher hotline,' at 800-662-3337.
Bettridge pointed out in the past five years, the number of animals killed illegally has ranged between 1,000 and 1,400. He added Utah is a big state, and as he put it, the agency does not have "an incredible amount of officers" to cover the vast landscape. When they're fully staffed, there are about 50 officers in the field to investigate reports of animal killings.
"For example, the cow elk in Emery County, that cow elk was shot during a time that it could have been a legal season for cow elk," Bettridge recounted. "However, only a small amount of the meat was taken from the carcass and everything else was left to waste, which makes it illegal, even if you had a license to legally kill that elk."
Bettridge acknowledged the majority of hunters and fishermen are doing the right thing, but said there are bad actors out there. He added the division depends on the public to help by reaching out if they come across something potentially illegal and in need of a closer look.
get more stories like this via email
A federal court ruling that limits wolf trapping and snaring in Idaho could aid recovery of grizzly bears in the region.
U.S. Judge Candy Dale ruled that the state needs to cut back on wolf trapping and snaring because of its impact on grizzly bears, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
Jeff Abrams, wildlife program associate with the Idaho Conservation League, said a bill passed in Idaho in 2021 expanded trapping and snaring of wolves and likely led to the judge's decision.
"The decision plainly concludes that there's no way to set a trap or a snare in a way that will only capture a wolf," said Abrams, "and state incentives for this activity make the problem even worse."
Under the ruling, wolf trapping season will close between March 1 and November 30 in eastern and northern Idaho.
In response to the decision, Idaho Fish and Game Director Jim Fredericks said the state has expanded wolf snaring cautiously and the agency is considering its legal options.
While grizzlies have made a comeback in parts of Idaho, Abrams said they've been absent in the central section of the state, known as the Bitterroot.
"That recovery zone does not have bears in it right now," said Abrams, "and this ruling very much impacted our ability to begin to work to restore bears in that habitat."
Abrams said he believes lawmakers have been single minded in the their approach to wolf management, expanding it too far.
"The right to trap is guaranteed in Idaho but not if it might impact or harm protected wildlife species," said Abrams. "It also risks the goodwill of a lot of Idahoans that generally support the idea of trapping."
Disclosure: Idaho Conservation League contributes to our fund for reporting on Energy Policy, Environment, Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email