scholarly journals Blackbirds

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Dolbeer ◽  
George M. Llnz
Keyword(s):  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Molothrus Ater ◽  
Common Species ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Livestock Feed ◽  
Xanthocephalus Xanthocephalus ◽  
Euphagus Carolinus ◽  
Rusty Blackbird ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The term blackbird loosely refers to a diverse group of about 10 species of North American birds that belong to the avian family Icteridae. The most common species include: Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus, Common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), Great-tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and Rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus). They can cause damage to crops and fruits. Some of them may cause damage to livestock feed in feedlots and some of them may be a cause for concern in the future, due to the potential for disease transmission, with their expanding range. There is potential to amplify and spread disease to humans such as avian influenza although there is no evidence that this happened. Blackbirds are native migratory birds, and thus come under the jurisdiction of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), a formal treaty with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Blackbirds have federal protection in the U.S.

The Black and White

2020 ◽  
pp. 68-80
Author(s):  
Sara Crosby
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Black And White ◽  
Human Contact ◽  
Game Birds ◽  
Audubon Society ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

This chapter recounts how the author found a dead black-and-white warbler many years ago. It details the author's first visit to a taxidermy studio. Even though the idea of having the warbler mounted and displayed on the author's mantle was irresistible, they knew it was also illegal. In 1918, Congress passed the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the MBTA. The MBTA saved hundreds of species from the destruction, and sometimes extinction, brought on by the effects of commercial bird trade. It essentially bans any human contact with migratory birds. One may not kill, capture, or pursue them; one may not collect their eggs or nests or even their feathers; and one may not pick them up if they are dead. Taxidermists know all this, and so — with the exception of the permitted, but regulated game birds from hunting — they will not get near a migratory bird. The author then joined a team of local Audubon Society volunteers in order to get a salvage permit, which lets people temporarily possess a migratory bird.

scholarly journals Geese, Ducks and Coots

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cummings
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Canada Geese ◽  
Agricultural Crop ◽  
Snow Geese ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
American Coot

Canada geese, snow geese, ducks, and American coots all have been implicated in agricultural crop and turf damage. Generally, goose, duck, and American coot damage to crops, vegetation and aircraft can be difficult to identify. Usually the damage to crops or vegetation shows signs of being clipped, torn, or stripped. Tracks, feces, or feathers found neat the damage can be used to help identify the species. Damage to aircraft is obvious if the bird is recovered, but if not, and only bird parts are recovered, a scientific analysis is required. Canada geese, snow geese, ducks, and American coots are federally protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), which stipulates that, unless permitted by regulation, it is unlawful to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, possess, sell, barter, purchase, ship, export, or import any migratory birds alive or dead, or any part, nests, eggs, or products thereof.” Generally, geese, ducks, and coots can be hazed without a federal permit in order to prevent damage to agriculture crops and property with a variety of scare techniques. In most cases, live ammunition cannot be used.

scholarly journals More than Birds: Developing a New Environmental Jurisprudence Through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act

2019 ◽  
pp. 789
Author(s):  
Patrick Maroun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Private Interests ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Circuit Courts ◽  
Act One ◽  
Environmental Jurisprudence

This year marks the centennial of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, one of the oldest environmental regulatory statutes in the United States. It is illegal to “take” or “kill” any migratory bird covered by the Act. But many of the economic and industrial assumptions that undergirded the Act in 1918 have changed dramatically. Although it is undisputed that hunting protected birds is prohibited, circuit courts split on whether so-called “incidental takings” fall within the scope of the Act. The uncertainty inherent in this disagreement harms public and private interests alike—not to mention migratory birds. Many of the most important environmental statutes are also aging and may soon face similar interpretive issues. This Note argues that, to address inherent problems with aging environmental statutes, courts should adopt a jurisprudential preference for fidelity to each statute’s purpose.

Constitutional Law in 1919–1920. II: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1919

1921 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-70
Author(s):  
Edward S. Corwin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Game Warden ◽  
Tenth Amendment ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act

From the historical point of view no more interesting case was decided last term than that of Missouri v. Holland, in which a bill in equity brought by the state of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, and the regulations made by the secretary of agriculture in pursuance of this act was finally dismissed, Justices Van Devanter and Pitney dissenting without opinion.The objectors to the statute and the underlying treaty based their argument upon the Tenth Amendment, supplemented by the proposition that the control of migratory birds within their respective limits is a power reserved to the states, and from these premises they proceeded to draw the conclusion that “what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the states, a treaty cannot do.” But, Justice Holmes answers in his opinion for the court, the treaty-making power is expressly delegated to the United States, treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land, and by article 1, section 8, Congress may pass all laws necessary and proper to carry valid treaties into effect.

scholarly journals Vultures

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Avery ◽  
Martin Lowney
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Safety ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Safety Management ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
State Wildlife Agencies ◽  
Service State ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Turkey Vultures

Black and turkey vultures cause problems in several ways. The most common problems associated with vultures are structural damage, loss of aesthetic value and property use related to offensive odors and appearance, depredation to livestock and pets, and air traffic safety. Management of these diverse problems often can be addressed by targeting the source of the birds causing the problem, namely the roost where the birds spend the night. Often the roost itself is the problem, such as when birds roost on a communication tower and foul the equipment with their feces or when they roost in a residential area. Several methods are available for roost dispersal. Vultures are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and are managed by the federal government. Vultures may be harassed without federal permits, but can be killed only after obtaining a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State wildlife agencies may require state permits prior to killing migratory birds.

scholarly journals Using Bioacoustics to Examine Vocal Phenology of Neotropical Migratory Birds on a Wild and Scenic River in Arizona

Birds ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-274
Author(s):  
Heather L. Bateman ◽  
Sidney B. Riddle ◽  
Erin S. Cubley
Keyword(s):  
Sonoran Desert ◽  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Riparian Forest ◽  
Bird Species ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Bird Diversity ◽  
Yellow Warbler ◽  
Habitat Features ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Vocal Activity

Passive acoustic recorders have been used successfully as automated survey tools to detect terrestrial wildlife. However, few studies have monitored Neotropical migratory bird use of riparian forest habitat using this technology. Within dryland ecosystems, the forests along rivers support high bird diversity. Many bird species of conservation concern require these floodplain forest habitats for foraging, migration stop-overs, and breeding. Few studies have explored the use of acoustic records in riverine systems designated for conservation for their natural resource value via the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in the USA. Using acoustic recorders, we document vocal activity of four riparian-obligate species (Bell’s Vireo, Vireo bellii; Summer Tanager, Piranga rubra; Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechial; and Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Coccyzus americanus) to determine species occurrence along a Wild and Scenic River. We established three study reaches along the perennial Lower Verde River, in the Sonoran Desert of central Arizona, USA. Nine acoustic recorders were used over the period of 80–120 days during the summer of 2018. We measured vegetation composition and structure in 100 m2 plots paired with acoustic recorders. Visualizing vocal activity showed that three species were calling and singing at each reach; whereas, one species, the cuckoo, had fewer recordings and occurred later in the summer. We demonstrate the utility of acoustic monitoring even when applied to rare birds in complex riparian habitats. This information is important for land management and conservation efforts concerning these species of interest and identifying important habitat features in Southwestern US riparian woodlands.

scholarly journals Hunting of migratory birds in North Sinai, Egypt

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
PERRI EASON ◽  
BASEM RABIA ◽  
OMAR ATTUM
Keyword(s):  
Migratory Birds ◽  
Bird Species ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Mediterranean Coast ◽  
Population Declines ◽  
Mp3 Players ◽  
Southern Mediterranean ◽  
Sand Bar ◽  
North Sinai ◽  
Desert Scrub

SummaryDuring autumn migration, people set trammel nets along most of the Mediterranean coast of Egypt, with migrating Common Quail Coturnix coturnix as their primary target. These nets capture large numbers of quail, but also illegally capture other birds, which are then killed. We present the results of surveys from 2008 to 2012 along these lines of nets on the coast of North Sinai, Egypt. In desert scrub, which covers most of the Sinai coast, the mean number of quail killed reached a high of 357.1 per km per day in 2012, with a grand mean over the study period of 191.9 per km per day. Trammel nets also captured 54 other bird species in 28 families. Species captured at the highest rates in desert scrub included Corncrake Crex crex, Isabelline Wheatear Oenanthe isabellina and Greater Short-toed Lark Calandrella brachydactyla. Based on mean rates of capture from 2008 to 2012 in desert scrub and sand bar habitats, we estimate 2.0 million quail and 0.5 million birds of other species are killed annually in North Sinai during the 45 days of peak migration. In 2012, however, after the use of MP3 players to attract quail became widespread, we estimate that 3.3 million quail and 0.5 million other birds were captured. Hunters near the coast have recently begun covering shrubs and trees with mist nets to catch passerines. From 2010 to 2012, mist nets along our survey routes caught birds of 17 species in three families, with seven of these species caught only in this type of net. Hunting is likely to be a contributing factor to population declines for some species that migrate across Egypt and further studies of migratory bird hunting along the southern Mediterranean shore are badly needed.

scholarly journals Hawks and Owls

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Washbum
Keyword(s):  
Companion Animals ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Migratory Bird ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Environmental Services ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Migratory Bird Treaty Act ◽  
Economic And Social Impacts

Hawks and owls can negatively impact a variety of human interests, including important natural resources, livestock and game bird production, human health and safety, and companion animals. Conflicts between raptors and people generally are localized and often site-specific. However, the economic and social impacts to the individuals involved can be severe. Despite the problems they may cause, hawks and owls provide important benefits and environmental services. Raptors are popular with birdwatchers and much of the general public. They also hunt and kill large numbers of rodents, reducing crop damage and other problems. Hawks and owls are classified into four main groups, namely accipiters, buteos, falcons, and owls. All hawks and owls in the United States are federally pro-tected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, 703−711). Hawks and owls typically are protected under state wildlife laws or local ordinances, as well. These laws strictly prohibit the capture, killing, or possession of hawks or owls (or their parts) without a special permit (e.g., Feder-al Depredation Permit), issued by the USFWS. State-issued wildlife damage or depredation permits also may be required.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document