Showdown: Protected birds vs. protected fish

by Walter Olson on May 1, 2012

“Oregon officials … want federal approval to shoot a sea bird that eats millions of baby salmon trying to reach the ocean. Oregon needs federal approval to start shooting double-crested cormorants because the birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” The state has previously attempted to protect the salmon fry by paying for speedboats and firecrackers to harass the cormorants, but “harassment has ‘proved insufficient.’” [East Oregonian via Balko]

P.S.: Meanwhile, “Federal prosecutors hope to use an obscure law to punish two recreational pilots whose low flying may have disturbed thousands of resting migratory birds in Iowa.” [h/t Baylen Linnekin]

{ 6 comments }

1 ps 05.01.12 at 2:45 am

hmmmm, the old ‘protected species implosion’. Wonder who gets to decide which species gets more protection.

2 John Burgess 05.01.12 at 8:03 am

@ps: I’m sure a multimillion-dollar federal research grant will be forthcoming to resolve that very issue.

3 John Fembup 05.01.12 at 10:58 am

What kind of unprincipled birds do they have in Oregon, anyway, that don’t understand how insensitive it is to prey on another endangered species?

I say, sensitivity training for those birds. (Funded by the multimillion dollar federal grant, of course).

4 Mark Biggar 05.01.12 at 1:12 pm

Don’t the birds win, I thought that treaties preempted other laws.

5 Hugo S. Cunningham 05.01.12 at 2:14 pm

Congress has the final say, should they choose to exercise it.

Birds, unlike birdbrains, are not protected by the Constitution.

6 kimsch 05.02.12 at 10:37 pm

Comments on this entry are closed.