The proposed amendments to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to accommodate industrial activities are in stark contrast to the principles of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. This model, rooted in the pioneering conservation efforts of figures like George Bird Grinnell, Theodore Roosevelt, and Gifford Pinchot, is built on the premise that wildlife belongs to all citizens and should be managed in a way that conserves species for future generations.

The North American Model: A Legacy of Conservation

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation comprises several key principles, including the concept that wildlife should be managed so that populations will be sustained forever. It emphasizes science as the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy, advocating for laws like the MBTA which was established to protect migratory birds from commercial exploitation and widespread destruction of habitats.

The shift proposed by recent amendments — effectively removing liability for unintentional but preventable harm to birds by industrial activities — undermines these foundational principles. Such changes not only decrease the accountability of industries like oil, gas, and renewable energy but also threaten the very survival of the species the MBTA was enacted to protect.

Betraying Conservation Pioneers

George Bird Grinnell, an early leader in America’s conservation movement and founder of the first Audubon Society, was instrumental in the creation of legislation like the MBTA. Theodore Roosevelt, often hailed as the "conservation president," established numerous national parks and wildlife refuges that serve as sanctuaries for migratory birds to this day. Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, advocated for the sustainable management of the nation’s forests and wildlife, emphasizing conservation for public benefit.

The proposed dilution of the MBTA disregards the legacies of these conservationists. It represents a shift from proactive wildlife management to a reactive stance that only addresses harms after they have become severe and widespread. This approach risks the progress made over a century ago, turning back the clock on conservation efforts that were hard-won by Grinnell, Roosevelt, and Pinchot.

The Decline of Bird Populations: An Urgent Concern

The decline of bird populations across North America adds a significant layer of urgency to the discussion surrounding the MBTA. Recent studies have highlighted alarming trends, with nearly 3 billion birds lost since 1970, representing a 29% decrease in the total bird population. This massive decline spans across various species, from songbirds to birds of prey, largely due to habitat loss, environmental pollution, and the unmitigated effects of climate change.

Bird populations are indicators of ecological health, serving critical roles such as pest control, pollination of plants, and seed dispersal. Their decline signals broader environmental disruptions that can eventually affect human populations. 

The weakening of laws like the MBTA, which has historically provided some measure of protection against industrial impacts, only exacerbates these trends. By reducing accountability for incidental harm caused by industry—such as deaths from oil spills, wind turbines, and other infrastructures—the proposed amendments undermine efforts to stem this decline and protect bird populations.

What Can Concerned Citizens Do?

The fight to maintain robust protections under the MBTA is not just about preserving birds but about upholding a commitment to the ethical, scientific management of all wildlife. Concerned citizens can take action by:

• Educating themselves and others about the importance of the MBTA and its role in broader conservation efforts.

• Participating in public comment periods on proposed changes to the MBTA. These periods are crucial for expressing public support for strict bird protections.

• Supporting organizations that work on migratory bird conservation, such as the Audubon Society or the American Bird Conservancy, which actively oppose weakening the MBTA.

• Contacting elected representatives to express their views on the importance of maintaining strong protections under the MBTA.

As stewards of the environment, it is our responsibility to ensure that our actions today do not compromise the wildlife heritage that belongs to future generations. By standing against the amendments to the MBTA that favor industrial interests over conservation, we honor the legacy of early conservation leaders and take a firm stand for the principles they fought so hard to establish.