The Federal Duck Stamp Office (click here) administers the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, commonly known as the Federal Duck Stamp Act. The Act requires use of a migratory bird stamp (Duck Stamp) for waterfowl hunting, and raises funds for the conservation of migratory waterfowl by the 1916 migratory bird treaty between the U.S. and Canada...
It is impossible to protect birds without forests. (click here)
The court's decision in "Sierra Club vs Martin" (click here) in regard to the MBTA is "W"rongly decided. The MBTA is a 'protection' statute more than it could ever be called a criminal statute. Currently, the law only requires any action against the MBTA to be a misdemeanor and not a felony. It is arguable that should change, especially considering the diminished size of the flyways and protected areas due to the exploitation of the statute of the Bush years.
But, at any rate, the MBTA as it was decided in regard to the Sierra Complaint refers to use by the US Forest Service in regard to harvest. It was thought the importance of harvesting the forest when in 'national interests' is permissible. That is somewhat true, but, not to the extent it is practiced.
However, the forests of the states have used the Sierra decision repeatedly to exploit their forests to fall less 'quality and quantity' then even the US Forest Service. The Sierra vs Martin decision means nothing in regard to state, local or private forests. The decision of the judiciary at the time was in regard to freeing up the US Forest Service from obligation of the treaty especially at a time of national need for security purposes. Bush used this argument when there wasn't enough plywood for Iraq during the Iraq War. That also is not proper use of the decision so much as more abuse of power.
The Sierra decision was to benefit the USA and not international countries that aren't even participants in the treaty.
So.
The MBTA has to be returned to its former integrity and the "Sierra vs Martin" decision scrutinized for the broad purposes it is used today. Those purposes are exploitive and actually threaten the USA's national security interests in regard to its forests and their harvests.
The "Gore" climate legislation has to be passed as well. The obstruction of effective enforcement by the EPA of 'Air Quality Standards' is an outrage in the face of eminent and ACTUAL dangers to Americans and their property. The obstruction of effective Climate Crisis Legislation is nothing more than a power play the Plutocracy to benefit profits to companies and CEOs.
The BEST resolve for CO2 is strict compliance through enforcement by the EPA with the removal of the designation of 'unobtainable' across the board for all air pollutants.
While 'Carbon Exchanges' assist in the protections of forests in other countries, in the USA it sincerely has a deleterious effect both on the elections and the public in general. The 'Cap and Trade' rules when applied to USA markets will do nothing but pass the cost to the consumer while companies continue to pollute. It is far better to regulate USA polluters by the EPA while allowing USA farmers participate in Carbon Exchanges to protect rainforests (which act to protect the sovereignty and national security of the USA as stated by the USA military and agencies such as NOAA and NASA) and other valuable biotic content of Earth.
Additional costs to consumers as a back handed reality by businesses that pass on the cost will pay very poorly in elections. Why penalize the people rather than the polluters? Makes no sense to do that. It makes for bad policy that hurts the electorate and therefore bad politics as well.
E.P.A. Limit on Gases to Pose Risk to Obama and Congress (click here)
