![\"\"](\"https:\/\/news.law.fordham.edu\/elr\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/12\/2020\/07\/7FF486B5-BD7A-4CFE-A3F6-94767C0FB7F5-300x257.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
by Vynateya Purimetla<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n Introduction and Context<\/b><\/p>\n In 1918, Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) which codified a treaty with Canada and the United Kingdom. It protects roughly 1,000 bird species from extinction. Already millions of birds die on power lines, communication towers, and oil waste pits which kill <\/span>64 million, 7 million, and 1 million birds<\/span><\/a> a year respectively. Without it, the devastation would be complete. The MBTA is part of an international treaty conglomerate established with the purpose of protecting avifauna diversity against corporate malpractice.<\/span><\/p>\n In 2018, the Trump administration repealed vital language protecting birds from \u2018incidental\u2019 deaths. Removing this language strips incentives from businesses to adopt bird-protecting practices and eliminates a host of penalties on violators.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n To illustrate the effect of this repeal, if the change was in effect during the <\/span>Deepwater Horizon <\/span><\/i>disaster, BP would not have been liable for the \u2018incidental\u2019 deaths of more than <\/span>1 million birds <\/span>and <\/span>$64 million worth of settlement funds<\/span><\/a> would not have been paid to restore more than <\/span>350,000 acres of bird habitat<\/span><\/a>. Because <\/span>99%<\/span><\/i> of bird harm is accidental<\/span><\/a>, the Trump administration has effectively neutered a century-long precedent protecting American birds from extinction and accelerated the destruction of biodiversity.<\/span><\/p>\n Department of Interior vs. Environmental Groups<\/b><\/p>\n The Department of Interior (DOI) stated the removal of the word \u2018incidental\u2019 is beneficial, claiming: \u201c<\/span>interpreting the MBTA to apply to incidental or accidental actions hangs the sword of Damocles over a host of otherwise lawful and productive actions<\/span><\/a>\u201d. However, this opposes the Obama administration and dozens of environmental groups\u2019 positions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Katie Umekubo of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) states the \u201c<\/span>Trump administration\u2019s reckless actions threaten the irreversible loss of birds<\/span><\/a>\u201d. David O\u2019Neill of the National Audubon Society agrees, commenting that \u201c<\/span>the MBTA serves as a common-sense tool to protect birds from preventable deaths<\/span><\/a>\u201d and the DOI\u2019s change is a \u201c<\/span>misguided, short-sighted attack by the Administration<\/span><\/a>\u201d. Mike Leahy of the National Wildlife Federation vehemently opposes this change by stating that \u201c<\/span>there is no sense in poking holes in a century-old, proven method of success when one-third of America\u2019s wildlife is at increased risk of extinction<\/span><\/a>\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n These statements by the DOI have been positively received by the fossil fuel industry, drilling and extraction industry, and energy companies. The removal of the word \u2018incidental\u2019 allows the cutting of common-sense conservation measures as it strips corporations of their liability considering no harm is explicitly intentional. Although the change in the MBTA is certainly \u2018beneficial\u2019 to companies, the Trump administration\u2019s position is nowhere near \u2018beneficial\u2019 to the birds it aims to protect.<\/span><\/p>\n Possible Mitigation<\/b><\/p>\n In response to the Trump administration\u2019s efforts to neuter the MBTA, Democratic Representative Alan Lowenthal of California\u2019s 47th district alongside 18 bipartisan co-sponsors have introduced the <\/span>Migratory Bird Protection Act (H.R. 5552)<\/span><\/a> to restore the vital \u2018incidental\u2019 component to the MBTA. Section 2(a) of the bill explicitly inserts \u201c<\/span>incidentally take<\/span><\/a>\u201d and Section 14(a) proposes \u201c<\/span>it shall be a violation of this Act for any person to incidentally take a migratory bird as a result of a commercial activity except as authorized by this section and regulations issued pursuant to this section<\/span><\/a>\u201d. Without this vital protection, companies are no longer required to cover tar pits (that birds mistake for ponds) with nets, make power lines more visible, or flash communication tower lights to deter flocks. Unfortunately, the Republican-controlled Senate is unlikely to act.<\/span><\/p>\n