Prosecution for nest changes / Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

[rameye2]

A small publication depicted a PUMA landlord holding a martin chick while doing a nest change. A licensed bander reached out to the LL depicted in the article. The bander told the LL that it is illegal to handle purple martins or their nests under the MBTA, and as a license-holder the bird bander is required to report violations to the U.S. Federal Wildlife Service (USFWS).
I think he's technically right, and his statement bodes trouble, even though the PMCA website openly advocates for nest changes, and I understand it to be a widespread and appropriate practice.
Has the USFWS actually prosecuted anybody for conducting nest changes? What result?
Please note: I'm not asking for legal advice or what I "should do" or what I "should say." I'm just interested if the federal authorities ever prosecute LLs for handling martins or conducting nest changes, and with what results.

[Phil01]

That’s a very good question and I am curious what the PMCA’s reply will be?
My thoughts are, since landlords are collecting data, (ie. number of eggs laid, hatched, fledged) and reporting it to the PMCA via data sheets, are they not technically participating in a “scientific study” thus being allowed to handle young for a short period of time for nest changes to prevent mite infestations?
I’m sure there are tons of landlords that don’t keep records and report, so not sure what the answer to that would be…
Phil

[rameye2]

Thanks for the reply Phil. By my reading of the MBTA, just keeping and reporting data is no defense against the violation of handling purple martins and their nests. Claiming to be involved in "research" but not having a permit is no defense either. By my reading, you have to have a license from the feds to handle the birds or do research. I'm guessing someone on here will chime in with, "well, just do it discreetly." But I think that's unsatisfactory, considering the long-term need to inspire others to become LLs. And, being discreet doesn't protect you from the feds if you've got a busybody peeking over your fence.
I'm curious if the feds have actually ever prosecuted a martin LL for doing nest changes, though. I find it unlikely, but even so that wouldn't deter a busybody from shutting down a successful roost by loudly complaining and making threats.

[brent]

Interesting for sure. Would putting up “artificial nest cavities” by itself break the law? I mean it’s not natural. What would it take to get a permit? Brent

[rameye2]

Good question, Brent. I think under a strict reading of the MBTA, just about any contact you have with a wild bird is illegal. There's probably a reasonability standard that the feds are going by, when they exercise discretion in what they prosecute. This probably helps them weed out the busybody timewaster complaints that basically start with, "Know what a guy I know is doing that I don't like?" Nevertheless, if I'm going to be straightforward with people about employing best practices like nest changes, I can't be having a licensed bander going around telling people, and the property owners that I assist with colonies, that I'm committing a federal crime. I'm looking into getting a permit. If I'm successful I will share what I know in this forum.

[Martintown33]

We’ve all been handling purple martins for decades.. I’ll be willing to bet there has never been one prosecution of this “law”… no offense, but I think you’re being hyper sensitive..
Rob

[rameye2]

Thanks for the reply, Rob--that's the info I'm looking for, whether anybody has ever heard of someone prosecuted for handling martins and doing nest changes--which certainly appear to be a violation of the written language of MBTA. I've never heard of it happening, and I'm not too concerned with potential charges. But I do want to know if it's happened, and what result.
As far as being over-sensitive, maybe I am. But in a small town, it would be really easy for the well-known guy with a banding license to go complain to the local conservation authority, for whom I volunteer, and scare them off the otherwise successful and expanding purple martin project. After he reports me to the feds, which is what he implied he's going to do. I'm going to see about getting a permit, and if I get one I'll share the info. If it helps someone else avoid drama, I want to share the info.

[Martintown33]

I understand your concern.. this guy really needs to mind his own business.. people have been providing housing for and handling martins, for 400 years… starting with the Choctaw Indians, who hollowed out gourds and hung them on poles, to attract martins. They did this to attract the martins who ate the insects who endangered their crops, and to chase away crows that ate their corn. So began the bond between humans and martins… the pilgrims learned this from the indigenous peoples and did it also.. and so the bond between martin landlords and Martins, continues today… if this guy is so interested in martins he should be happy that you’re a landlord…
Good luck solving this issue.. I hope it works out..
Rob

[Thomabear]

A small publication depicted a PUMA landlord holding a martin chick while doing a nest change. A licensed bander reached out to the LL depicted in the article. The bander told the LL that it is illegal to handle purple martins or their nests under the MBTA, and as a license-holder the bird bander is required to report violations to the U.S. Federal Wildlife Service (USFWS).
I think he's technically right, and his statement bodes trouble, even though the PMCA website openly advocates for nest changes, and I understand it to be a widespread and appropriate practice.
Has the USFWS actually prosecuted anybody for conducting nest changes? What result?
Please note: I'm not asking for legal advice or what I "should do" or what I "should say." I'm just interested if the federal authorities ever prosecute LLs for handling martins or conducting nest changes, and with what results.

rameye2, can you post a link to this publication?

[Dave Reynolds]

.. Hello Everyone -- I would not touch that Question with a 14 foot Purple Martin pole...

Dave

[brent]

Lol… brent

[C.C.Martins]

Nope!!!! Hahahahahaha!!

[rameye2]

article is here, I think you get one article for free:
https://www.telegraphherald.com/news/tr ... 3b5a9.html

For what it's worth, today I worked together with the bander who made the critical comment about handling martins and nests. He was fine to work with, and I hope we continue collaborating, glad to meet him and work together. We banded 64 chicks. There were no further comments about handling martins or nests. I didn't bring it up. I don't think he'll feel compelled to "report" me, all went fine. He implied USFWS is a pain to work with, maybe he's more concerned with them coming around. Or perhaps it was the terse tone of his earlier email that I found alarming--but a threat to report was the plain language of it. Whatever. Things today went fine.

But I think my concern about nosy people causing trouble is still legit, and I'm still going to look into getting a permit. Maybe I'm lucky that a well-meaning person scared me into action; better than an ill-meaning person coming out of nowhere with a full-brewed storm. There are those types around. If/when I get more info about permitting, and get USFWS's take on the situation, I'll report back here.

And I'm still curious to know if anyone has gotten in trouble for doing nest changes, and with what result.

[Bird Brain]

Everyone agrees that martins are "semi-domesticated." "Domesticated" implies that some level of care is required for the development and advancement of said species. You are required to feed, water, provide shelter, and provide veterinary healthcare for your dog, cat, livestock, and chickens. Molesting a martin nest is not the same thing as molesting a bald eagle nest or a blue jay nest. Chickens require nest changes. I'm no lawyer, but I think this argument bodes well for current landlord management practices. I think this bander has over estimated his authority and over played his hand.

[Thomabear]

Everyone agrees that martins are "semi-domesticated." "Domesticated" implies that some level of care is required for the development and advancement of said species. You are required to feed, water, provide shelter, and provide veterinary healthcare for your dog, cat, livestock, and chickens. Molesting a martin nest is not the same thing as molesting a bald eagle nest or a blue jay nest. Chickens require nest changes. I'm no lawyer, but I think this argument bodes well for current landlord management practices. I think this bander has over estimated his authority and over played his hand.

Very well said Bird Brain... I was thinking the same thing you stated. Purple Martins are different than other migratory species in that they rely on humans for their survival. If every landlord were to stop taking care of Martins, they would be endangered within a few short years. I don't think I'll allow some Barney Fife crowing from a stump to alter my dedication to their survival.

[Phil01]

Very well said Thomabear and Bird Brain! I may be wrong but I know of no other migratory birds that rely solely on man made housing/nesting sites. Should fall under a totally different set of rules… It’s not like disturbing a nest built high in a tree, in a field, or marsh!
“Barney Fife crowing from a stump” LMAO Thomabear! Good one!!
Phil

[Martintown33]

Well said bird brain.. and agree thomabear.. I don’t think some over officious Barney fife wannabe is going to stop landlords from doing what we’ve been doing for so long.. as far as the question… I would be willing to bet there have been ZERO landlords ever prosecuted for this… for the reasons so well stated by birdbrain..
Rob