Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mbta Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House subcommittee examines Migratory Bird Treaty Act amid calls for regulatory certainty
Summary
A House Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing reviewed the MBTA’s century‑old protections, debated whether the law should cover incidental take, and heard competing calls for flexibility to address both accelerating bird declines and localized overabundances. Witnesses described economic losses and urged targeted reforms.
The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries convened a hearing on March 5 to review implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and its effect on industries, landowners and conservation.
Chair Hagerman opened the session by recounting the MBTA’s origins in 1918 and saying the law must be reviewed to reflect modern conservation and economic realities. She told the panel she had received constituent complaints about wind projects in Wyoming and cited recent criminal fines against wind companies for golden eagle deaths as evidence the statute’s application has real economic consequences.
Ranking Member Hoyle emphasized the MBTA’s conservation legacy and warned that cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge System have reduced capacity to protect habitat; he cited Fish and Wildlife Service analysis that 53 refuges currently have zero staff and hundreds more are understaffed. Paul Schmidt, a witness and former Fish and Wildlife official, told the panel that recent studies show substantial continental bird losses and said robust monitoring and funding are needed to guide recovery efforts.
A central legal question threaded through the hearing: whether MBTA liability should extend to incidental take by lawful industrial activities. Ranking Member Huffman and others criticized what they called shifting administration interpretations and proposed legislation — including a Bipartisan Migratory Bird Protection Act — that would create a general permit pathway, establish a research and recovery fund, and reduce penalties for incidental take when permittees follow best management practices. Huffman summarized the proposal as seeking both certainty for industry and incentives for on‑the‑ground conservation.
Witnesses offered competing emphases. Mike McCormick, president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, described severe local livestock and aquaculture impacts — including black vulture predation on newborn calves and losses he said total “over $2 million” annually in Mississippi — and urged statutory relief such as the Black Vulture Relief Act and the Cormorant Relief Act. Leslie Swanson of Salt River Project, representing a large public utility, outlined SRP’s voluntary Avian Protection Program and said utilities need clear, flexible compliance standards to plan transmission work without ‘‘regulatory whiplash.’’
Several members asked for policy tools that balance species protection with local management needs. Witnesses pointed to existing approaches — best management practices, flyway coordination, avian protection plans and selective depredation orders — as ways to target localized conflicts while maintaining continental conservation goals under the MBTA.
The subcommittee did not vote on legislation. Members may submit additional questions for the record by March 9; the hearing record will remain open for 10 business days.
