Stunned and Outraged at Our Environmental Policies?
Here’s an article headlined: Wildlife officials stunned and outraged (emphasis mine) after the Trump administration guts the Migratory Bird Act. Yesterday, when the Trump administration eviscerated the protections for migratory birds that had been in place for 50 years, the Audubon Society was furious, claiming, quite correctly, that this is simply one more “big gift to big polluters.”
But “stunned and outraged?” Outraged, sure. Everyone who cares a whit for our environment is outraged. But stunned? Sorry. What would be more astounding is if these bastards leave a single concept in place that protects our planet and everything living on it.
Craig,
Calm down !
Reading only publications like the Daily Kos can make you a little paranoid !
Firstly, the Trump administration can’t alter or amend the Migratory Bird Act. The act is enshrined in Legislation and only Congress can alter or amend legislation.
So, what’s all the fuss about ?
The administration is undergoing a review of how certain provisions of the Act are interpreted and administered. The Administration has advised it’s conducting a review of previous procedures in the light of recent court decisions. The review will include opinions from legal, wildlife and conservation experts and take up to a year.
The President referred to these decisions in his campaign and complained of the Obama administration instructing the Department of Justice to file lawsuits against seven North Dakota oil companies for the deaths of 28 birds while fast-tracking wind projects ” killing more than 1 million birds a year .”
The Trump administration argues implementation has become overly aggressive and oppressive.
The administration claims rulings by the Federal Courts against the Justice Department (confirmed on Appeal) prove the act is not being interpreted as it was intended. The Act was never intended to allow ‘criminal’ prosecutions for incidental, accidental, unforeseeable acts, especially when no degree of reckless indifference was present.
Demanding or threatening six months prison and $15,000 penalty for each and every bird injured or killed no matter the circumstances, was never the intention of the legislators in 1918.
Essentially, that’s the position adopted by the administration. The DoJ will still prosecute willful, reckless acts against birds and will pursue civil penalties in all appropriate cases. The administration claims it’s new interpretation makes everyone equal before the law, (no exceptions for wind and solar) but would prefer these issues to be clarified by Congress.
Liz Cheney, Wyoming ( Rep. Wyoming) has sought to amend the act so criminal (not civil) penalties not longer apply when birds are accidentally or incidentally killed except where reckless or depraved intent could be established.
That is the case for the administration.
Conservationists worry that if passed, such provision could ‘symbolically’ weaken protection for the birds. The bill could get to a vote this year although a Senate bill has yet to emerge.
Conservationists, career bureaucrats, along with opponents of the administration claiming “. “This administration is selling out birds for industry and dirty industry at that.”!
Both sides haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory for turning what was a legal and administrative issue into a political bunfight.
Democrat members of Congress, instead of provoking hysterical fear and outrage, could simply have supported (and amended) the rep from Wyoming’s proposal. Alternatively, the Dem’s could propose their own amendment to strengthen and clarify these provisions in the Act.
It wouldn’t matter what administration is in power, no administration can keep enforcing an interpretation the courts have found on more than one occasion, flawed and unequal.
It’s important to remember an administration is powerless in the face of clear legislation. (Oddly, enough in his clumsy and combative way, President Trump is a believer in increasing legislative power at the expense of Executive and administrative power).
I hope my observation assists in restoring some balance to this issue.
IMHO the really important consideration should be the best welfare of the birds. On matters like this, petty political point scoring should be set aside.
mp – “political bunfight” …I want to see this! 🙂
Here’s the letter from all the former DOI professionals:
https://www.scribd.com/document/370904363/Mbta-Zinke#from_embed
Cameron.
Bun =[ similar to a small bread roll or scone, often containing currents]
Bunfight = [a heated dispute over petty issues].
I suppose the term “bunfight” is more common in the UK and Commonwealth nations than the US.
One meaning of “bunfight” originates from the practice of pupils at boys boarding schools using rock hard, stale inedible buns as ammunition in food fights. Aged thirteen, my younger brother distinguished himself by knocking the hat off the head of the socialist politician and then Leader of the Opposition, the honorable Micheal Foot, with just such a missile when both were visiting the Leighton Park School (co-educational Quaker independent school) for an inter-school sports competition.
Micheal Foot as a former pupil was invited as a distinguished guest, my little brother uncharacteristically accepted a dare from the son of a distinguished member of the House of Lords to pelt the unfortunate Michael Foot with buns, rock cakes etc. The idea caught on among the other boys creating quite an incident.
My brother has always maintained the discovery of female pupils at a previously all boys school excited the older boys to a testosterone fueled display of bravado. He was duly punished by his own school and a letter sent to my father for further admonition, however my father thought the incident hilarious and rewarded my errant brother by giving him his first hunting shot gun to decimate the local bird life !
I can understand and appreciate the alarm and concern expressed by the earnest and distinguished signatories to the letter, for which you kindly provided a link.
The preservation of migratory birds is a laudable aspiration and every effort, within reason, should be made to achieve that goal.
On the other hand, it’s equally important that laws should be clear and equal. As the Federal Court rulings made clear, launching a ‘criminal’ prosecution against an oil company for an unforeseen, accidental and unwanted spill that kills some bird life, and not prosecuting a Wind farm which knows before construction the turbine will kill thousands of birds and flying mammals per year, is discriminatory.
The letter so elegantly and passionately authored by these prominent DoI officials, doesn’t address the issue. Basically, the letter argues the issue of interpreting or framing the law is better left in the hands of professional bureaucrats and political appointees than the peoples elected representatives and courts.
Don’t you think it’s better the law becomes clearer through legislation than bureaucratic interpretation, no matter how enlightened ?