Current Public Attitudes to New World Vultures

The current public attitudes to New World Vultures stem from their predation on livestock, pollution and nuisance in urban areas, and sympathy for the declining populations of the condors. As noted by Gross (2006) Americans once persecuted vultures, because they believed vultures transmitted disease, when actually vultures help control brucellosis, anthrax, and other livestock diseases by removing infected carcasses. Koford (1953) also records a time in the 1930s when the California condor was viewed as an enemy of progress and a threat to American values, because condor conservation was used as a reason to halt the building of a road by the United States Forest Service. However, as noted in Chapter 7 of this book, the Black vulture has acclimatized to urban areas, contributing to property damage, roosting pollution due to defecation, negative opinions on their danger to livestock and people, and aircraft collisions (Buckley 1999; Lowney 1999; Avery 2004; Avery and Cummings 2004; Blackwell and Wright 2006; Novaes and Cintra 2013).

An important barometer of public opinion of New World vultures is the legislation related to their presence. Vultures are still killed by people who believe them to be troublesome, but laws have been implemented for their protection. Millsap et al. (2007) note that as most national conservation laws are modeled on international or regional laws and treaties, the components are similar. Examples include the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in 1973 in Washington, D.C., USA, and implemented by 169 countries as of July 2006; this convention gives a 'uniform system of control on the international movement of CITES-listed species, including raptors' (Millsap 2007: 437). Other relevant agreements are the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar), the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

In the United States, the Federal Government's involvement with raptors prior to 1900 was mostly for predator control (Millsap 2007). After this, conservation and science actors promoted the benefits of raptor presence and conservation in support of new legislation. Currently, important regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50 (50 C.F.R.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Parts 10 and 21), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Part 22), and Endangered Species Act (Parts 17 and 23).

The first relevant legal act that might affect vultures through their status as wildlife was the Lacey Act of 1900 (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371-3378) which was named after its sponsor Representative John F. Lacey, an Iowa Republican. It was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900. The Lacey Act protects wildlife and plants by creating civil and criminal penalties, and prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally captured, transported or sold. This Act is still effective, although there have been several amendments (Fisher and Cleva 2000). The next environmentally related law was the Weeks-McLean Act (effective 4 March 1913). This latter act was named after its sponsors, Republican Representative John W. Weeks of Massachusetts and Senator George P. McLean (R) of Connecticut. It prohibited the spring hunting and marketing of migratory birds and the importation of wild bird feathers for women's fashion. The Secretary of Agriculture was given power to regulate and set hunting seasons across the United States. This was replaced by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

In 1913, the Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Act (MBA; 37 Stat. 878, ch. 45). This protected all migratory game and insectivorous birds and prohibited hunting of these species except as allowed by federal court regulations. This act was however challenged successfully in a federal because the property clause of the Constitution granted states primary management authority over wildlife in their jurisdiction (Bean 1983).

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-711), signed in March 1916, and implemented in 1918 was for the protection of migratory birds between the United States and Canada (Great Britain was acting on behalf of Canada). The constitutionality of the act was upheld by Supreme Court in 1920. Subsequent, similar treaties were enacted between the United States and Mexico, and with Japan and Russia. Although the original treaties did not provide specifically for raptors, these were added to the treaty with Mexico in a 1972 amendment (Bond 1974). The list of birds in the MBTA now includes all Falconiformes and Strigiformes that occur (not accidentally) within the U.S.

The act made it illegal, without a waiver, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill or sell birds mentioned in the Act ('migratory birds'). This included live and dead birds and bird parts such as feathers, eggs and nests. There are 800 species currently on the list. Exceptions are federal regulations (50 C.F.R. 22), which control both possession and transportation of bald eagles and golden eagles, and their 'parts, nests, and eggs' for 'scientific, educational, and depredation control purposes; for the religious purposes of American Indian tribes; and to protect other interests in a particular locality.' Members of federally recognized tribes are given the right to apply for an eagle permit for use in 'bona fide tribal religious ceremonies.' The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also issued exemptions, bird-killing permits to public and private entities, to these provisions. These are usually disclosed by Freedom of Information Act requests. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was enacted in an era when many bird species were threatened by the commercial trade in birds and bird feathers. Later, other laws were added to the MBTA based on conventions between the United States and Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and the Soviet Union (now with Russia 1976). Although the MBTA allows birds to rest in private properties, and prohibits the removal of the birds from such properties, a federal permit may be granted for the relocation of listed species (also, in some states a state permit is needed as well as a federal permit). The criteria for such a permit are listed in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, 21.27, Special Purpose Permits.

Another relevant act was the Endangered Species Preservation Act (ESPA; P.L. 89-669), which was passed by Congress in 1966. The initial ESPA empowered the Secretary of the Interior to ensure the conservation, protection, restoration and propagation of declining species of wildlife and fish. This scope was broadened in 1969, when the Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA; P.L. 91-135), was passed, as this further action empowered the Secretary of the Interior to list wildlife species under global extinction threat and prohibit the importation of these species into the U.S. The act also directed the Secretaries of State and Interior to convene an international ministerial meeting on the conservation of endangered species (Bean 1983). The international meeting of 3 March 1973 resulted in the creation of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, also known as the Washington Convention).

As the ESCA did not provide detailed methods for the conservation of most native endangered species from federal actions and left the taking of endangered species to the states, in 1973 the United Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 V.S.C. 1513-1543). The ESA implements the provisions of CITES. It also notes that species may include subspecies, and stipulates the criteria for listing species as endangered or threatened (Section 4). The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are directed to establish and implement a land conservation for the listed, threatened species (Section 5). The Secretary of the Interior is also directed to work with the different states through management, cooperative and financial agreements with state level agencies for the conservation of listed species (Section 6). Very importantly it also directs that all federal agencies should ensure their actions do not pose a risk to any listed species, and it defines a consultation process for assessing impacts (Section 7). Sections 9, 10 and 11, also prohibit the importation, export, taking, possession, transport, sale, and trade of any listed species, normalize the exemptions and prescribe civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Act (U.S. Congress 1983).

In Canada, there is the Migratory Birds Convention Act (also MBCA) passed in 1917 and updated in June 1994. This act protects migratory birds, their eggs, and their nests from hunting, trafficking and commercialization and defines the grounds for a permit to carry out any of these activities. In the general law, there is also the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 446, Cruelty to Animals (from 1892), which outlaws actions 'causing unnecessary suffering.' It directs 'Everyone commits an offence who willfully causes or, being the owner, willfully permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal or bird . . .'

However, as noted by Millsap et al. (2007: 441) 'in Canada, raptors are not protected by any overarching federal legislation, as they are in the U.S. Rather, basic legal protection from disturbance and harassment is provided by provincial and territorial legislation. Raptors were not included in the Migratory Bird Convention with the U.S. in 1916, the enabling Canadian legislation in 1918, nor in any subsequent amendments to that Act.' As a result, each provincial and territorial government issues the relevant permits for actions related to raptors. However, the federal government enacted the Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003; this act is designed to protect the nationally listed raptors and determines the requirements for permits for research and conservation activities. Environment Canada issues the permits, except in National Parks, where such permits are issued by Parks Canada Agency.

International and inter-provincial transport of raptors is controlled by the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Inter-provincial Trade Act (WAPRITTA). Any projects that may handle raptors, and potentially harm them are also subject to the Canadian Council on Animal Care Committee. Projects on crown land, whether federal, provincial or territorial must be approved by the relevant authorities. There is also the Canada Wildlife Act (CWA), which although it does not mention raptors, provides regulations for activities on National Wildlife Refuges and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries, including those that affect raptors and hence would require permits under the CWA. There is also the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), founded in 1968, the mandate of which is 'to work for the improvement of animal care and use on a Canadawide basis.'