Migratory Bird

Displaying 41 - 50 of 90
Titlesort descending Summary
OH - Nongame - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. Special Hunting Area; Nongame Birds; Scientific Permits. This Ohio statute prohibits the injuring, killing, pursuing, possessing, or exposing to commerce of all nongame birds. The statute further prohibits the killing or possession at any time of bald or golden eagles, except for the educational or zoological possession by government affiliated agencies.  Notably, each possession or taking of a bird or bird part constitutes a separate offense.
OK - Game Animals - Part 4. Protected Game. § 5-410. Hawks; falcons; owls; eagles Oklahoma law prohibits the knowing and willful killing or molestation of hawks, falcons, owls, or eagles, or their nests, eggs, or young. The only exceptions to this prohibition are the taking of a hawk or owl in the act of destroying domestic birds or fowl, or the use of hawks, owls, falcons, or eagles by licensed falconers.
OK - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 25 Wildlife Rules The following Oklahoma regulations detail that a license is needed for any person who wishes to rehabilitate wildlife. A person must renew this license annually for a fee of ten (10) dollars unless that person has violated any of these provisions or was found not to be taking proper care of the animal during the animal's rehabilitation. In such a case, a person must wait a minimum of one year before that person can renew his or her license. These regulations also relieve the Department of Wildlife from liability and costs incurred by the licensee. Additionally, these regulations require a licensee to report any listed endangered or threatened species; require a record of veterinary visits; require a record of the type of species lodged at the facility; require proper facilities; and require proper release of rehabilitated animals and proper disposal of animals that cannot be rehabilitated.
Overview of Feral Cat and Wild Bird Controversy 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.
Overview of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Overview of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA)


This overview discusses the recent amendment to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Under a bill introduced in May of 2004, all bird species not considered "native" to the United States would be excluded from protection. This new law, known as the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act, has been the center of much controversy, especially as it concerns the cause of mute swans in the U.S. It became law on December 8, 2004, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005.
Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources


The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act.
Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell In this case, various environmental groups filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior, arguing that the BLM should not have granted right-of-way on federal lands to a proposed energy project because the project would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The plaintiffs also argued that the BLM’s environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project was not sufficient according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ultimately, the court held in favor of the defendants and found that the EIS was sufficient under the NEPA and that by granting the right-of-way, BLM was not violation the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The court found that the EIS was sufficient under the NEPA because it included all the necessary information and was broad enough as to not force the BLM into automatically accepting the proposal. Additionally, the court held that the BLM was not in violation of the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act because the BLM was acting in a “purely regulatory capacity” and the BLM’s action could directly or proximately cause a violation under the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell The Protect our Communities Foundation challenged the Bureau of Land Management's Record of Decision authorizing development of a utility-scale wind energy facility on public lands in San Diego County, arguing that BLM's approval of a right-of-way violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act. The Court found that BLM did consider several alternatives to the proposed Project, took a "hard look" at the environmental consequences, and did not improperly defer specification and analysis of mitigation measures. The Court also held that Federal agencies are not required to obtain a permit before acting in a regulatory capacity to authorize activity, such as development of a wind-energy facility, that may incidentally harm protected birds. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motions for summary judgment.
Protect our Communities Foundation v. Salazar The Protect Our Communities Foundation filed a complaint challenging the United States Department of the Interior's approval of the Record of Decision approving a utility-scale wind power project arguing that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). But the Court held that the Department discussed reasonable alternatives, that the Decision was not an arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a permit was required under the MBTA for an unintentional killing of migratory birds.

Pages