What Problems Does The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Pose For Farmers, Ranchers and Rural Landowners?

Overview

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq. (2008). protects migratory birds that are not necessarily endangered and, thereby, protected under the Endangered Species Act.  The MBTA is important to agricultural producers and rural landowners because it has been broadly interpreted such that routine daily activities can become subject to the MBTA and create criminal liability at the hands of the U.S. government.      

The Scope of the MBTA

What does “take” mean?  The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to “take” any migratory bird.  “Take is defined to mean “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect any migratory bird. 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712 (2008); 50 C.F.R. §10.12.  Practically all bird species in the United States are covered due to regulations developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) that apply the MBTA to species that don’t even migrate internationally or even at all.  50 C.F.R. §10.13.   

The Act is not limited to covering only hunting, trapping and poaching activities, but extends to commercial activities that kill migratory birds absent an MBTA permit.  The Act prohibits taking or killing of migratory birds (including a nest or egg) at any time, by any means or in any manner.  That could include such conduct as operating oil and gas production facilities, aerogenerators, cell towers as well as commercial forestry and common agricultural activities.  16 U.S.C. §703. However, the courts are split on whether the MBTA applies strictly to truly migratory bird deaths that are not inadvertent (see, e.g., United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015)) or deaths of a broader classification of birds that are killed only inadvertently. 

Type of crime.  Violation of the MBTA is a misdemeanor punishable by fine up to $500 and imprisonment up to six months. 16 U.S.C. § 707(a) (2008), as amended by 18 U.S.C. §§3559; 3571.  Anyone who knowingly takes a migratory bird and intends to, offers to, or actually sells or barters a migratory bird is guilty of a felony, with fines up to $2,000, jail up to two years, or both.

Strict liability?  The MBTA is a strict liability statute, and has been applied to impose liability on farmers who inadvertently poison migratory birds by use of pesticides.  While the MBTA is a strict liability statute, constitutional due process requirements must still be satisfied before liability can be imposed.  In other words, there still must be an affirmative act that causes the migratory bird deaths.  For example, in United States v. Apollo Energies, Inc., et al., 611 F.3d 679 (10th Cir. 2010), oil drilling operators were not liable for deaths of migratory birds under the MBTA to the extent that the operators did not have adequate notice or a reasonable belief that their conduct violated the MBTA.  Likewise, in United States v. Rollins, 706 F. Supp. 742 (D. Idaho 1989), a farmer was prosecuted for violating the MBTA when he used a mixture of granular pesticides on an alfalfa field. The chemicals poisoned a flock of geese and killed several of them.  The trial court held that even though the farmer had not applied the pesticide in a negligent manner and could not control the fact that the geese would land and eat the granules, liability under the MBTA was based on whether the farmer knew that the land was a known feeding area for geese.  The trial court concluded that “a reasonable person would have been placed on notice that alfalfa grown on Westlake Island in the Snake River would attract and be consumed by migratory birds.”  The trial court was reversed on appeal on the grounds that the MBTA was too vague to give the farmer adequate notice that his conduct would likely lead to the killing of the protected birds since the farmer's past experience with the pesticide and the geese was that it did not kill them.  But, in United States v. Van Fossan, 899 F.2d 636 (7th Cir. 1990), the court confirmed the notion that the MBTA is a strict liability statute and approved its application to a defendant who used pesticides to poison birds, even though the defendant did not know that his use of the pesticide would kill migratory birds protected under the Act.

“Baiting” of birds.  The MBTA also prohibits the taking of migratory game birds by the aid of “baiting”.  However, it is permissible to take migratory game birds, including waterfowl, on or over standing crops, flooded harvested croplands, grain crops that have been properly shocked on the field where grown, or grains found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or harvesting.  See 50 C.F.R. §§ 20.11(g); 20.21(i)(2008).  The FWS has promulgated regulations defining “normal agricultural planting” and “harvesting,” and in Falk v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 452 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2006), the court held that FWS determinations that harvesting corn after December 1 and aerial seeding of winter wheat in standing corn were not “normal planting” and that the landowners were barred from hunting next to the neighbors’ baited fields were a reasonable interpretation of the MBTA.

Some states also have statutes that prohibit the baiting of wildlife for hunting purposes unless the alleged baiting was the result of commonly accepted agricultural practices.  For instance, in State v. Hansen, 805 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011), the defendant’s conviction for using bait to hunt deer was reversed.  The court held that the state statute violated due process because it was vague as applied to the defendant’s pumpkin patch operation.  The law did not distinguish between normally accepted agricultural practices and the unlawful baiting of deer.

In addition, the Act permits the taking of all migratory game birds, except waterfowl, on or over any lands where shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed has been distributed or scattered as the result of bona fide agricultural operations or procedures.  In United States v. Adams, 383 Fed. Appx. 481 (5th Cir. 2010), a farmer was convicted of violating the Act for hunting doves on a field that he had recently planted to wheat.  For purposes of the “baiting” provision of the Act, the trial court judge determined that intent was not an element of the offense for which the farmer was convicted and did not allow the farmer to introduce evidence concerning the procedures commonly used to plant winter wheat in northeast Louisiana.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding instead that the government was required to prove that the farmer’s intentions were not in good faith and that the farmer’s acts were merely a sham to attract migratory birds to hunt.  Accordingly, the court reversed the farmer’s conviction and rendered acquittal based on the court’s determination that the farmer was entitled to have the lower court consider the evidence of his good faith in growing the wheat, and because there was no evidence from which a jury could find that the farmer’s planting was not the result of a “bona fide agricultural operation or procedure.”  In another case, United States v. Andrus, 383 Fed. Appx. 481 (5th Cir. 2010), the court determined that the use of a stripper header to harvest milo was not a "normal agricultural practice" with the result that the defendant's sentence for taking migratory birds by aid of bait in violation of the MTBA was upheld.  The defendant's testimony that he could not reasonably have been expected to know that the field he was hunting in was baited because he was not a farmer was not credible.  The court noted that the defendant failed to inspect the field and that unharvested milo was clearly present near the defendant's duck blinds and decoys.

Migratory bird facilities.  The MBTA regulations specify that “no migratory bird preservation facility shall receive or have in custody any migratory game birds unless such birds are tagged.  See, e.g., 50 C.F.R. § 20.36.  The requirement has been held to apply to an individual.  See, e.g., United States v. Gilkerson, 556 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2009).

Conclusion

Supposedly, the FWS (the enforcing agency of the MBTA) is only interested in enforcing the MBTA on activities that “chronically” kill protected birds, and then only after notice has been given to the alleged offending party.  80 Fed. Reg. 30034 (May 26, 2015).  But, that might be of little assurance to farmers, ranchers, rural landowners and others whose fate could be left up to FWS discretion and the interpretation of the MBTA by the courts where interpretations can differ by jurisdiction.