A House panel on Wednesday explored the big mystery in the middle of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and revealed a bipartisan appetite for more clarity in what the law means.
While legal and political opinions differ on whether the 1918 law covers unintentional as well as deliberate acts that harm birds, Democrats and Republicans alike cited a need to settle on some common understandings.
“The question of whether MBTA’s prohibitions cover incidental take has divided federal courts, and the federal government’s legal interpretation has changed in each of the last three administrations,” said House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.). “Regulations that change after each presidential election create uncertainty for everyone governed by them and, depending on the industry, can have catastrophic circumstances.”
California Rep. Jared Huffman, the committee’s top Democrat, likewise called for greater certainty in migratory bird protections, and he offered as a starting point a bill he has introduced with 10 bipartisan co-sponsors, H.R. 3188, the “Migratory Bird Protection Act.”
