Hello: This is all I found on the 1918 Migratory Bird Act that is aimed at game birds.
P.L. 105-312, Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1998, amended the law to make it unlawful to take migratory game birds by the aid of bait if the person knows or reasonably should know that the area is baited. This provision eliminates the "strict liability" standard that was used to enforce Federal baiting regulations and replaces it with a "know or should have known" standard. These amendments also make it unlawful to place or direct the placement of bait on or adjacent to an area for the purpose of taking or attempting to take migratory game birds, and makes these violations punishable under title 18 United States Code, (with fines up to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. The new amendments require the Secretary of Interior to submit to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Resources a report analyzing the effect of these amendments and the practice of baiting on migratory bird conservation and law enforcement. The report to Congress is due no later than five years after enactment of the new law. P.L. 105-312 also amends the law to allow the fine for misdemeanor convictions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to be up to $15,000 rather than $5000. The fine for violating the 1918 Migratory Bird Act is a misdemeanor up to $15,000 vs HF 2852, Sec. 18. [97A.346] that is classified as a petty misdemeanor up to $300.00. The 1918 Migratory Bird Act is currently doing a great job protecting our birds in MN. Why the need to focus on how a few people in MN observes these birds for images is beyond me! Again the real fight is protecting habitat where these owls reside in not fighting and banning a few people who feed a owl a mouse! HF 2852 is a waste of time and energy!! Also this thread is about Minnesota birds and its no different than people posting requests to save nature parks or other birding locations in Minnesota. There is a subject line on each posting to the listserv and if you do not like the subject.. delete it. I know some people on the MOU listserv are interested to know about this bill. Mike On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Frederickson Randy < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm just curious, do you know if all species of owls are considered > migratory? Also, most gallinacious birds are not covered under this treaty > then, since most don't migrate? Seems every answer generates more > questions:) > > Randy Frederickson > Willmar Middle School > > > On Apr 15, 2014, at 6:53 PM, "Michael Hendrickson" < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello: > > > > All birds including owls are all protected under the Migratory Bird > Treaty > > Act of 1918. (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/migtrea.html) > > > > Specific provisions in the statute include: > > > > - Establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by > > regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, > > capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, > > purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for > > transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to > be > > carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or > > carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, > > included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of > > migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 > > U.S.C. 703) > > > > HF 2582 regardless of the way it is written now or what changes Michael > > Furtman and the DNR make today or tomorrow to the bill it is adding more > > restrictions on how we observe owls when the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of > > 1918 has been protecting owls in Minnesota for a very very long time. > > Great Gray Owls, Snowy Owls, Boreal Owls and Northern Hawk Owls > populations > > have not suffered because who is feeding them a mouse for observation, > > images, research and education!! > > > > There is also not one research paper to prove that feeding an owl a mouse > > is harmful to them maybe for some it is unethical but that is another > > topic. Why is the DNR interested in adding more protection to one group > of > > birds based on no research or data when the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 > has > > been doing a great job already protecting our birds in Minnesota? Should > > not the real fight be in regards to the owl's welfare is to use all this > > energy and protect their habitat from logging and development in > Minnesota? > > Currently in Sax-Zim Bog all the bog woods along the Admiral Rd where > known > > Great Gray Owls are nesting currently will be up for logging bids within > > 10 years from now! Should not the DNR use all their influence and muscle > to > > protect nesting habitats of owls in MN instead of wasting their time and > > energy to preventing a handful of photographers in MN to feed an owl a > > mouse? Should not that be the real fight? > > > > Like I said the Migratory Bird Act of 1918 is currently protecting owls > and > > all songbirds that reside in MN. Adding more restrictions like this is > not > > the fight I want the DNR to focus on. I would prefer to see our public > > servants like the DNR be more proactive and use their energy and time and > > protect habitat NOT pushing a bill that has no effects on the owl's > > welfare. Like I mentioned in my last post to this listserv, I am > currently > > monitoring an owl's nest in Minnesota. This owl from what I have been > > told, has been fed numerous times off and on in the last 4 months. ( Mid > > December to Mid March ). When I apply all the claims and reasons why > > feeding an owl is detrimental to the health to an owl and how feeding > owls > > will effect their behavior, well this owl should of died long time ago > but > > yet it is currently defending a nesting territory, feeding his mate who > is > > on the nest and actively catching live mice. I have been observing the > > effects of owls after they been given free handouts all winter season > > during last several years and I have yet to see any harm to them health > > wise and behavior wise. > > > > If the DNR wants to protect the owls from this kind of activity by a > > handful of people in MN then why not broaden it to all raptors? Some > > people in Minnesota toss fish out to Bald Eagles along the Mississippi > > River for images. Some people put mice out to Rough-legged Hawks and > other > > raptors for photos. Why not broaden it too all raptors in MN? Why just > > owls? > > > > Again this is not a bill we need to protect the owl's welfare, the real > > fight is protecting habitat for the owls in MN. The time is coming when > > birders driving up the Admiral Rd in Sax-Zim Bog will be able to view > > Byrn's Greenhouse on CR 7 by looking to the east and birders will be able > > to wave at other birders on the McDavitt Rd by looking to the west with > no > > black spruces, tamaracks and cedars obstructing their view. Great Gray > > Owls (the mascot of Sax-Zim Bog) will be driven out of their habitat > > because all the trees they use to nest in or roost in are all logged out. > > YES people, all the bog habitat along the Admiral Road on both sides will > > be open for logging bids in 10 years from now! So while Michael Furtman > > and the DNR can dance around and celebrate the passing of this needless > > bill, the Great Gray Owls, N. Hawk Owls, N. Saw Whet Owls, and Long-eared > > Owls will not be around for anyone to view or feed them a mouse. > > > > Again where is the real fight? > > > > This is a needless bill that will have no effect on the owl's welfare! > > > > Call your local representative and tell him/her to vote NO on HF 2582. > > > > Thank You > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Debbie Petersen <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> I passed your concerns on to the amendment's author, Michael Furtman. > >> > >> He spoke with the DNR today, with whom he has been working closely on > this > >> amendment. They have decided to slightly change the wording so it > obviously > >> applies only to visual luring. > >> ------------------------------- > >> Debbie Petersen > >> Laporte, MN > >> > >> ---- > >> Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > >> Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > > > > > > > -- > > > > *Mike Hendrickson* > > > > *Mike Hendrickson Guiding <http://mikehendricksonguiding.com>* > > *Sax-Zim Bog <http://www.sax-zimbog.com>* > > > > ---- > > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > -- *Mike Hendrickson* *Mike Hendrickson Guiding <http://mikehendricksonguiding.com>* *Sax-Zim Bog <http://www.sax-zimbog.com>* ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
