Fortunately for birds that migrate through or live in the United States, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that violators of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act need not have intentionally killed birds to be convicted. Considering the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court, let’s hope that the case ends here.
Corey is a New Yorker who lived most of his life in upstate New York but has lived in Queens since 2008. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy and Desmond Shearwater. His bird photographs have appeared on the Today Show, in Birding, Living Bird Magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest, and many other fine publications. He is also the author of the American Birding Association Field Guide to the Birds of New York.
This is not quite justice.
I struck a Sparrow with my car about a month agoor rather she hit me (that is my story, and I am sticking to it!). What if she were a House Finch rather? By the way, the Sparrow was not one of the 80 million (at least not in her encounter with me); she survived.Furthermore, is it not unsettling that the conviction that held was the one in which Walker actually tried to take preventive measures (by capping exhaust pipes) and the one that was the thrown out was that in which Walker claimed ignorance?
So this is not really a win for the birds, I fear.
@sara: Did you read this paragraph in the article?
“Wildlife regulators in February 2006 inspected 150 heater treaters over two days across southeastern Kansas to determine the extent of bird deaths caused by them and found the remains of 300 birds, including 10 migratory birds, in 65 heater-treaters. Those findings prompted a program to advise oil producers of the problem and give them until Jan. 1, 2007, to modify their equipment.”
The company was notified of an easily resolvable problem and did not take steps to fix it in the 11 months given. So, while it is not like the birds were intentionally killed, they were killed because of the (in)action of the company.
Will this apply to tri-propped wind turbines? My guess is no.
@Corey: Yes, and I read the ruling statement in which the judges describe how Walker tried to comply but was held responsible anyway because birds found another way in (exhaust pipes vs. louvres).
By the way, here is one such presentation in the education campaign (view the .ppt). The photos depict birds in holes. I have not seen the louvres on Walker’s equipment, but generally, louvres are not holes. And here, the pipes are mentioned, the louvres are not. The guy tried with honest effort, but the birds really wanted in.
I am not the lawyer, but I think that this ruling in Walker’s case is idiotic.