***Click here for video. Click here for audio.***
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Fishers, Water and Wildlife, defended the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed rule to define the scope of the “Migratory Bird Treaty Act” (MBTA) during a committee oversight hearing this week.
“I applaud the decision, I don’t think [FWS] had a lot of choice. In North Dakota, we had three oil companies zealously prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s office over 28 birds that flew into various pits over the course of months,” said Senator Cramer. “Clearly it was not intentional, clearly this was lawful commercial activity. It was more a representation of their hatred of the industry than it was the love of birds, the way the Attorney’s office at the time went after these companies and consequently the workers.”
In 2011, the U.S. District Court in North Dakota rejected a complaint filed by the Obama Administration’s U.S. Attorney in North Dakota, which attempted to use an “expansive interpretation” of MBTA to punish three oil companies where birds happened to die on their property.
“Fortunately, there was one company willing to stand up to the [U.S. Attorney], and [the complaint] was thrown out for all the reasons the proposed rule states,” the Senator noted.
Earlier in the hearing, Assistant Secretary Wallace pushed back against the Obama Administration’s unreasonable interpretation of the MBTA in a response to Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). Click here to watch their exchange.
“Under the Migratory Bird Treaty, there is no civil penalty like you’ve done with all the other environmental statutes you’ve passed. It was the concern about that strict liability that criminal statute is the only enforcement option that Act provides …your first indication you’re in trouble under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a Grand Jury,” said Asst. Secretary Wallace. “There’s about a million birds unfortunately killed by wind turbines and oil ponds a year, 250-350 by automobiles, half a billion by plate glass windows. All of those are potentially under the purview of that interpretation of the law.”
###