Homeland Security is taking on a whole new menace these days.  We now look to the winged skies – and foreign birds - as both nuisances and possible ecological terror threats.  Some believe they are actually polluting our shores.

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) has recently introduced a companion bill (S. 2547) to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).

This bill, which has already passed out of committee, would amend the MBTA to remove federal protection for 94 bird species--including certain species of pelicans, swans, storks, cardinals, orioles, and cranes--which have been visiting, and living in, our country for decades. This dangerous legislation is both unscientific and anti-conservation, and should be rejected.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is a domestic measure that was passed in 1918 to protect birds during their migration.  This law implements the United States’ commitment to four international conventions to protect these birds.

Now, 86 years later, some Members of Congress have decided that some species of migratory birds are pests to be killed en masse, despite the fact that the MBTA already includes a mechanism for addressing specific problems that may arise in particular locations.

Notwithstanding the appalling notion of killing certain species of migratory birds, this legislation is being rushed forward without any scientific study being conducted to assess the validity of claims that some of these 94 species of birds may be harmful to our environment.

And who will decide whether a species’ presence is entirely the result of natural biological or ecological conditions? If bird habitat changes from land clearing and development have made a species migrate over the border, are they excluded? Will ‘Grandfather Clauses’ be necessary for foreign birds that have been visiting America since colonial times?

This bill would eliminate a clear closed list of species that has worked for decades, and replace it with a vague, ill-defined standard of “native” that will only increase litigation over bird protection as our courts are now forced to sort out complicated historical arguments about which bird species were here first, which species deserve to live, and which species should be systematically exterminated.

In addition, no study has been conducted to assess what impact removing these birds from their ecosystems may have on other species.

This bill is pure anti-science, anti-conservation, and anti-animal.

And, I suspect it has been brought about simply because some people find these noisy birds to be a nuisance, and in their way, as they eat their box lunches beside the artificial, aesthetically pleasing ponds adjoining their suburban office complexes.

Proponents of the bill point to the example of mute swans allegedly damaging the environment of Chesapeake Bay, yet leading scientists and organizations, such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, point to the waste runoff from industrial poultry farms as the number one cause of the bay’s environmental damage, and nutrients from sewage treatment plants as the number two cause.

Mute swans probably would not make a list of the top fifty polluters - the majority caused by man.

And mute swans have been cherished as symbols of purity and elegance for centuries. Native to Europe and Asia, they were transported to North America in the late nineteenth century by European immigrants. Some swans eventually escaped or were deliberately released into the wild.

And, unbelievably, mute swans have routinely been placed in suburban subdivision and office complex ponds throughout this country, in the belief that they would scare away the Canadian geese that favor these bodies of water, and that have also been deemed as ‘pests.’

Instead, the geese and mute swans have learned to live together in harmony in our ponds, rivers, and estuaries; so now many want them eliminated, and completely banned from our shores.

Mankind seems totally committed to eliminating as many of our earthly nonhuman neighbors as possible these days, in any way possible.

Congress has also not seen fit to renew the Anti-Assault Weapons Ban that had been advocated and lobbied for by our gallant police officers who had been extremely tired of being outgunned by criminals.

Since this ban has expired, it is now possible to order a brand new AK-47 on the Internet.

And, I can soon envision vigilante groups of assault weapons toting bird haters amassing at your local pond or park to gaily gun down and eliminate these nasty foreign subversive bird invaders.

“Hey, Joe!  Call the Swan Squad.  There’s a swarm of subversive illegal mute swans over at the park.  They’re trying to destroy our way of life and polluting our country.  And they’re riling up the geese to plot against us, too.  Let’s go burn those suckers!”

“All Right!  Just got my new AK-47 yesterday; and she’s a beauty!”

God save us all.

And it truly would be nice if our Congress would start worrying about the truly important issues that need to be addressed in this country, and would quit worrying about the potential subversive activities of innocent birds and dreaming up new ways to get rid of animals.

Can government issued ID cards and passports for native birds be far behind?  I wonder what that will cost us taxpayers.

Please contact your federal legislators today to oppose this dangerous, reckless, and totally insane legislation.

Dear Legislator,

As a wildlife advocate and your constituent, I strongly urge you to oppose S. 2547/H.R. 4114, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004. This reckless bill is an unscientific product of the view that "non-native" birds don't deserve protection, and could result in the indiscriminate killing of at least 94 bird species, including storks, pelicans, swans, cardinals, and cranes.

Since 1916, the U.S. has entered into four international treaties to protect migratory birds, and those treaties make no distinction between "native" and "non-native" birds. In fact, the entire purpose of the treaties is to protect birds that move between countries.

S. 2547/H.R. 4114 would replace a closed list of bird species which has worked for nearly a century, with an arbitrary, unscientific list. Congress should not undermine the international conventions which specifically protect all migratory birds.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) already has a mechanism of depredation permits for dealing with real problems caused by birds. If certain non-native bird species are really causing problems, the MBTA already allows state and federal agencies to obtain depredation permits.

Many of the birds on the "non-native" list are loved and enjoyed by our citizens. They should not be excluded from federal protection simply because they were introduced here decades or centuries ago and are not native to our soil.

For all these reasons, please oppose S. 2547/H.R. 4114, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,