Bulldozing bird nests

[dan_smith]

Back again. I had 72 nests alongside the dirt road leading to Bear River NWR staked out. All were second nests of the season as the flooding river had wiped out the first ones. Now, in preparation for the 4th of July weekend, the county road grader has wiped out every one of them. This after telling the refuge management they were only going to smooth out"the center of the road". Well, edge to edge was bladed. Avocet, Black Necked Stilts, Killdeer nest gone. Most within days of hatching. Anyone familiar with the Migratory Bird treaties that govern this stuff? Who to contact & complain? I am dealing with a county govt here that signed on to sue Bill Clinton, et. al. over his designating the Escalante Staircase Monument. All they understand is $$$, so if I can get them hit in the pocketbook maybe it will help next time around. Not exactly nature photograhy, but it does involve a major nature photo destination & specific nest sites I was shooting & watching so I could shoot the eggs hatching. Thanks.

[bob_atkins]

The reference you want is <a href="http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/intrnltr/treatlaw.html">http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/intrnltr/treatlaw.html</a>

 

<p>

 

I presume the

<a href="http://www.fws.gov/~r9dle/div_le.html">

US Fish and Wildlife Service Divison of Law Enforcement</a>

are the agency in charge

of enforcing the various acts relating to the protection of wildlife.

Whether they would take action against a contractor which the county

employed ("honest, it was an accident, we didn't know, we're sorry")

I don't know.

 

<p>

 

The migratory bird act would seem to cover the destruction of

birds nests and eggs (i.e. If you or I went out and trashed the

nests, we could, would, and certainly should, be prosecuted under the act), but I'm not sure I'd be

optimistic about getting much done in this case. Did you try

contacting the local Audubon Society, they may be able to provide

some help.

 

<p>

 

BTW I'm fine with this sort of question in the nature Q&A forum.

[paul_wilson2]

Typical local government. I'm disgusted.

 

<p>

 

I think you should definately contact the Audubon Society in addition to the other things Bob mentioned. Something like this should be publicized and the Audubon would know how to. Would local newspapers be sympathetic to this story?

[don_baccus]

I sent Dan a lengthy note via e-mail, saying some of the same things said by others. One suggestion was he get the addresses/names of the head of the county highway folks, the county commission (or whatever they call it in Utah), and nearest reasonable paper. If he posts them, I'd hope that readers of this forum would write a succinct, unambiguous expression of outrageous and mail 'em off. Out of state ire can be very effective, as Alaska found out a couple of years ago with their first attempt to kill wolves to increase caribou for sports hunters.

[bob_atkins]

It might help the case if Dan were to get some shots of the

bulldozed nests, broken eggs etc (plus some "before" pictures

if they were taken). Such images might carry a lot

more impact than words if run in a newspaper (or posted on a

web page). I'd be happy to host a web story and do the scanning

on any images if need be.

 

<p>

 

Note that the USFW Law enforcement division (URL given above)

has an email contact address on their page. It certainly could

not hurt if Dan were to email them a brief description of the

incident and ask for their opinion (which, of course, they

probably wouldn't give without proof of all the facts, but it

would get the ball rolling).

 

<p>

 

This wouldn't be the same county that bulldozed roads though a

proposed national wilderness area (because if it has roads through

it, then it can't be designated as wilderness!), would it? Don't

remember all the details, but it happened out there in the West

somewhere...

[paul_wilson2]

Don's idea about people writing letters is a good one. I for one would take the time to write and I would include something to the effect of "I wanted to come there on vacation and spend my east coast yuppie $, but if everything's been bull dozed, I'm not coming."

[anthonty_debase]

Using tourist dollars is certainly a great way to get some influence in other states. Year ago the British Colubia government wanted to clear cut in some very scenic areas of Strathcona Provincial Park. The lodge we stayed at had a petition at the desk but I resisted signing it since I am not a Canadian. Nonsense I was told. They need to know that tourists won't visit Vancouver Island to view clear cuts.

I signed the petition. I wish I knew what happened to the park.

[don_baccus]

Bob, I'm leaving for Bear River (and other Utah destinations) tomorrow or Saturday. Not because of this incident, it was previously planned. In my aforementioned note to Dan I said I'd take some photos of the bulldozed road to put up on my web site along with words, addresses to write, etc.

 

<p>

 

And if he happens to have some "before" slides to scan we can do that, to. We each have some slides of avocet chicks that were part of the first group that got washed out by flooding, and I had high hopes of photographing the new batch that was due to hatch just before or after my arrival. I have photos of other avocet nests along gravel roads that can be used as surrogates, too (and identified as such, of course, but would get the idea across).

 

<p>

 

The counties bulldozing roads to prevent them from becoming designated wilderness are largely, if not entirely, in the southern part of Utah, which is where the controversy over the future of desert lands is raging. The county Bear River NWR is in is north of Salt Lake City, on the eastern edge of the Great Basin. Despite being barely in the Great Basin, Bear Valley is quite wet and is all ag land. The range due east, the Wellesvilles, has a substantial raptor migration and is a mirror, in a sense, to the migration over the Goshutes. A mirror in the sense that the Goshutes border the Great Salt Desert on the west, while the Wellesvilles borders the Great Basin on the east, almost on the eastern edge of the Great Salt Desert.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, the bulldozing of roads within potential wilderness areas is a topic probably not terribly relevant to this forum, though if Bob wants me to post more details I will. All counties within Utah have joined a lawsuit in an attempt to overturn Clinton's designation of th e Escalante Staircase National Monument, though the Governor has chosen not to oppose it. It is this specific action which Dan was referring to. They're suing based on a claim that it amounts to designating it as wilderness, which only Congress can do. This is trivially false in that the proclamation simply drew boundary lines and makes no management decisions other than to stop a coal mine, leaving actual management details (designation as wilderness or not) to be worked out later. This has nothing to do directly with the road bulldozing issue other than the fact that Conservative Utah is trying to prevent any more fed land in the state earmark for conservation rather than development, and that Clinton's designation of the Escalante Staircase Nat Mon was a clever pre-emptive strike.

[bob_atkins]

I pulled the following from an Audubon Society page. It may be of

interst in the context of this thread. It's not good news:

 

<p>

 

<em>

With almost incredible bad timing--at the height of the migration season--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), announced a new position that the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) does not apply to the federal government or federal employees acting in their official capacities. The MBTA codifies treaties with Mexico,

Canada, Japan and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird species, and covers nearly all birds found in the U.S. The MBTA prohibits the taking of

migratory birds, and their nests and eggs, without a permit. FWS directed its regional employees to stop issuing permits to federal agencies under the MBTA and the

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. In the past, many federal agencies routinely applied for MBTA permits for activities that harm migratory birds. FWS does

note that federal agencies are bound by the provisions of the four migratory bird treaties. Regional employees are directed to consult "informally" with agencies to

minimize the impacts of their activities on migratory birds.

 

<p>

 

National Audubon strongly opposes this interpretation which exempts the Federal government and its agencies from the rules of the MBTA. For the first time in 80

years, agencies will no longer be held accountable for their actions that result in migratory bird kills. The MBTA permit requirements stipulate both monitoring and

mitigation for any killing of migratory birds and, for federal agencies, this will no longer be the case.

 

<p>

 

On April 29, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the Fish and Wildlife directive. National Audubon was involved in this case. A similar case is pending

in another Circuit Court. This issue may eventually reach the Supreme Court. Audubon President John Flicker has called this policy change "stunning" and

"completely unjustified." Noting that the policy was made without public hearings or public comment, he has urged the Administration to rescind the new policy and

allow public participation before making the change. He also urged the Administration to direct all Federal agencies to take additional steps to protect migratory

birds.

</em>

[anthonty_debase]

I recieved an e-mail message from GreenLines about this decision several weeks ago. Several of my fellow Sierra Club buddies where in a state of unbelief that the current administration (whose reelection was supported by them) could do such a thing. My conservative friends just shrugged their sholders and mumbled something about character counting after all. In the year 2010 perhaps we will still be able to photograph birds in the shopping malls. :(

[_____72]

So what. The roads are for peoples use not birds. There are thousands of acres that aren't effected by road grading where nesting takes place. A government agency has a duty and right to maintain its roads and right-of-ways for peoples use.