-
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!
Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Please identify? Urgent. US Florida (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter HaileyxDD
- Start date
Grousemore
Senior Member
I'm in Florida too and had a similar situation a couple of days ago with a Palm Warbler.
Fortunately, I didn't have all 64 volumes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to hand and it was too late to call my Attorney, so common sense was employed and the bird survived.
Fortunately, I didn't have all 64 volumes of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to hand and it was too late to call my Attorney, so common sense was employed and the bird survived.
rjackb
Well-known member
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which is responsible for enforcing the MBTA, makes several notable exceptions to the MBTA. One exception of particular relevance to this thread is "A special purpose permit is given to those who can make a sufficient showing of benefit to the migratory bird resource, important research reasons, reasons of human concern for individual birds (my emphasis), or other compelling justification."
I suspect that if the FWS were to try to prosecute a case such as this, the prosecuting attorney would never even file any charges since they would be so absurd. Don't forget that the U.S. judicial system relies heavily on both the intent of the law as well as precedent.
I suspect that if the FWS were to try to prosecute a case such as this, the prosecuting attorney would never even file any charges since they would be so absurd. Don't forget that the U.S. judicial system relies heavily on both the intent of the law as well as precedent.
The trouble is Jim, that humminbirds original post (unlike yours, which was helpful) was supercilious, condescending, patronisingly offhand and seemingly deliberately provocative (which is why I'm still wondering if it was a wind up or a joke)
That's not 'name calling', it's simply what it was.
I hope that -if it's not a joker- he/she chooses a different tone next time.
humminbird
Well-known member
I will apologize for my tone, but not for my message. This bird should have gone to a rehabber or been sheltered outside. We had freezing temps here in the Austin area the same night - cold enough I lost several citrus trees. Many birds survived quite well at my home, outside, despite the cold. Birds survive daily in many cold regions, significantly colder than any area in Florida got this last week, without our interference. The cold itself is not excuse to violate the law.
The exception requires a permit I noticed. That implies informing them you have the bird.
Option1
Village Idiot
+1, except unfortunately, it appears Hummingbird's posts are deadly serious. And I do so wish he/she would stop claiming their interpretation of the law is complete, correct, and incontrovertible. As an earlier poster noted, no law is that clear cut and is always open to interpretation or exception.
It's very very unlikely anyone would ever be prosecuted for such a good samaritan act. In the unlikely event, most probably where some ambitious, idiot prosecutor was trying to make a name for themselves, the case would be thrown out of court faster than it took me to type this. Even in the US.
So to repeat for emphasis, the original poster did exactly the right thing in the circumstances.
Neil
Last edited:
In spite of what others are saying, I don’t think there’s been much wrong with the tone of your postings which, it seems to me has been polite enough (I’m the one who often gets in trouble for tone!). It’s the content we (or at least I) object to. What you (& your supporters) appear to be saying is that the letter of the law should be slavishly followed even in cases where doing so is in clear violation of its spirit. This is a mentality I have very little sympathy with.
With regard to personal “jeopardy”, if one breaks the law for whatever reason one risks the prospect of unpleasant consequences. Of course, and this is how it should be—it’s called “putting your money where your mouth is”. What’s wrong with that? And why are you so exercised about it in this case anyway, where both intent & effects are clearly benign & where as just about everybody has pointed out charges are extremely unlikely to be brought?
But, it’s pretty clear nobody’s going to change his mind about any of this. In fact, I have a vague memory of a previous thread involving a very similar case in England where exactly the same positions were taken & defended to the death as here. Maybe somebody remembers it better & can dig out the link?
Last edited:
Maybe my memory’s at fault, but I believe the case I’m thinking involved a law against the disturbance of bird nests. But, it’s all very vague at this point. In any event, I was referring more to the general question—letter vs spirit of law—than to the specific circumstances of the Florida case, & that I believe has been raised more than once on BF.
Oh, yes, once or twice! Nest disturbance may well be what you are remembering, there have been a few such threads.
Mike
humminbird
Well-known member
Despite what everyone else is saying, I checked with the person responsible for issuing permits at the state level here, and he assures me this is not the case at all, that when found these cases are ticketed. He commented, as soon as I described the situation, that as soon as the bird went in the door it is considered in possession - regardless of intent. To clarify with him, I asked about transporting to a rehabber and he pointed out that has always been allowed - as long as the bird goes directly to the rehabber as soon as possible.
Now, I need to clarify again, I am not against taking action, only against the action that took the bird into possession. I do not think it was necessary, nor in the birds best interest. What would have been wrong with setting the bird out of immediate reach of cats behind a windbreak, or under a sheltering overhang, etc? These birds can, and do survive cold spells, many did this past week.
But I assured you all the other day I would say nothing more, and I will do so now.
Of course, he says that! No public official charged with enforcing the law would say anything else—he’d get in trouble if he did. The question is how many prosecutions have been brought against private citizens sheltering distressed songbirds in their houses overnight? We both know the answer to that—none.
humminbird
Well-known member
'fraid not. I personally know of some.
I don't think we've been addressing what the law ought to be--we've been addressing what the law is and how government agencies, who enforce the law, interpret it. (What the law ought to be is a more complex question.) What many here are not focusing on is that this is a law different from most of the criminal statutes we are familiar with. It's a strict liability law. That means you can violate it regardless of whether you intended to. Other strict liability laws are those against statutory rape--even if an adult reasonably believes someone is of the age of consent and means no harm, the adult can be sent to jail for having relations with a minor. Contrast that with burglary, for example--you can't unintentionally burglarize someone's home because if it's not intentional it's not burglary.
That said, I agree prosecution in cases like this is unlikely, and wouldn't chastise people for protecting birds in unusual circumstances (though I'm more in the let nature take its course camp), but I think it's appropriate to make them aware of the legal issues--if nothing else to guard against any temptation to keep the bird as a pet, which I know some people try to do, especially with fledglings.
Best,
Jim
:clap:
I think the first responses to OP's query addressed the urgent questions already.
Best,
Jim
Really, let's have the details. You don't have to mention names.
humminbird
Well-known member
The cases I am aware of were after repeated warnings from the wardens and repeated complaints from concerned neighbors.
I agree with Jim, it is unusual but it does happen. Jim, you hit the reason for my original post right on the head - make them aware of the law.
I agree with Jim, it is unusual but it does happen. Jim, you hit the reason for my original post right on the head - make them aware of the law.
ChrisKten
It's true, I quite like Pigeons
You're quite correct, I've just reread the thread and now realise that the OP solved the problem before the discussion began. Oh well, no harm done I guess, birds are safe, that's the main thing.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
