The current trend ofhabitat loss for seabirds is a major threat to their survival.17.3 INTRODUCED SPECIES IN SEABIRD COLONIES Another of the most prevalent causes of species endangerment
Trang 1P Dee Boersma, J Alan Clark, and Nigella Hillgarth
CONTENTS
17.1 Introduction 559
17.2 Effects of Habitat Modification on Seabirds 560
17.3 Introduced Species in Seabird Colonies 561
17.3.1 Predators 561
17.3.2 Grazers 562
17.3.3 Plants 562
17.4 Human Harvest of Seabirds 563
17.4.1 Hunting 563
17.4.2 Egging 563
17.5 Human Intrusions in Seabird Colonies 564
17.5.1 Tourism 564
17.5.2 Scientific Research 565
17.5.3 Other Disturbances 566
17.6 Other Threats to Seabirds 566
17.6.1 Climate Change, Pollution, and Commercial Fishing 566
17.6.2 Interspecific Competition and Threat Interactions 566
17.7 Legal Protection 567
17.7.1 Federal Protections 567
17.7.2 State Protections 569
17.7.3 International Protections 569
17.8 Progress in Seabird Conservation 571
17.8.1 Policy Approaches 571
17.8.2 Research 572
17.8.3 Management and Restoration 572
17.8.4 Education 573
Literature Cited 574
17.1 INTRODUCTION
The growth of human population and human resource consumption are probably the major factors affecting seabirds today Between one third and one half of the Earth’s terrestrial surface has been modified by humans (Vitousek et al 1997), and about one fourth of bird species have been driven
to extinction by humans in the last 2000 years (Steadman 1995) The world’s population currently exceeds 6.1 billion people, and more than 1 billion people are added to the planet every 13 years (PRB 2000) The exponentially increasing human population is correlated strongly with species declines (Soulé 1991) Seabirds are no exception, and humans have had significant impacts on many seabird populations
17
Trang 2Many of the same traits that make seabirds well adapted to their environment also make themparticularly susceptible to population declines and extinction They frequently aggregate in colonies
to which they return each breeding season, even if the habitat is degraded or destroyed During thebreeding season, seabirds nest in coastal areas or on islands, both habitats that humans havedeveloped extensively, destroying many seabird nesting sites Two hundred and seventeen taxa(species or races) of birds have become extinct in the last 400 years, and over 200 of these taxanested on islands (Rodda et al 1998) Two thirds of all currently threatened birds are threatened
on islands (Collar and Andrew 1992) Seabirds face intense threats to their survival both on islandsand in coastal areas (see Nettleship et al 1994 for a more in-depth treatment of seabirds on islands).Any effort to conserve seabirds needs to start with a determination and understanding of themajor threats these species face The primary reasons species become endangered are habitat loss,over-harvest, invasive species, pollution, and disease (Wilcove et al 1998) These same factors areprimarily responsible for the decline of seabirds In this chapter, we give a brief overview of some
of these major threats to seabirds These threat categories are somewhat artificial and ignore thepotential interactive and synergistic effects of multiple impacts Nonetheless, understanding threatsprovides a foundation for informed discussion of seabird conservation In addition to threats, wealso discuss the role of legal systems in seabird protection as well as recent progress in seabirdconservation efforts
17.2 EFFECTS OF HABITAT MODIFICATION ON SEABIRDS
In much of the world, habitat modification is the single most prevalent cause of species becomingendangered (studies summarized in Czech et al 2000, Meffee and Carroll 1997) Seabird habitatincludes three primary components: (1) nesting habitat, (2) foraging habitat during the breedingseason, and (3) at-sea habitat during the nonbreeding season (Boersma and Parrish 1998) Foragingand at-sea habitat are most affected by commercial fishing and pollution, and may become highlyaffected by climate change Because these impacts are addressed in detail elsewhere in this book,
we will not focus on them here
Although some human activity, such as guano extraction (Duffy 1994a), destroyed seabirdnesting habitat as long as 200 years ago (Figure 17.1), wide-scale destruction and modification
FIGURE 17.1 Historically guano was removed from many seabird colonies Unfortunately, guano (in this
case from cormorants) was once removed when birds were breeding, causing colony-wide reproductive failure for that year Guano mining is now more controlled and usually occurs after the breeding season Nonetheless, guano mining remains a problem for some seabirds (Photo by P D Boersma.)
Trang 3have taken place only in the last 50 to 70 years Coastal and island real estate are highly valuedand are being increasingly developed for human use, particularly in highly populous regions (Figure17.2) Approximately 50% of mangrove ecosystems have been modified or destroyed by humanactivity (WRI 1996) Bryant (1995) calculated that half of the remaining coastal ecosystems in theworld are at a moderate to high risk to development-related threats In Europe, 86% of the remainingundeveloped coastline is at moderate to high risk (Bryant 1995) Other causes of habitat loss andmodification include the interrelated threats of logging, farming, and grazing The current trend ofhabitat loss for seabirds is a major threat to their survival.
17.3 INTRODUCED SPECIES IN SEABIRD COLONIES
Another of the most prevalent causes of species endangerment is the introduction of nonnativespecies (Czech et al 2000) The scientific literature is replete with examples of extinctions,extirpations, and drastic reductions in seabird populations caused by the introduction of nonnativespecies into seabird nesting habitat (see summaries in Jones and Byrd 1979, Moors and Atkinson
1984, Burger and Gochfeld 1994) Introduced species can be divided into three main categories:(1) escaped pets, such as cats and dogs; (2) accidental introduction, such as mice, rats, andsnakes; and (3) intentional releases for food, sport, fur, and greenery, and as biological controlagents (Boersma and Parrish 1998) Not all introduced species have had a detrimental impact
on seabirds, but several introduced mammalian predators, grazers, and plants have had significantnegative impacts
17.3.1 P REDATORS
Many seabird colonies are naturally free from mammalian predators and as a consequence, seabirdsevolved without appropriate behavioral, ecological, and reproductive defenses against them (Loopeand Mueller-Dombois 1989) The impact of introduced predators on seabirds is well documented(see compilation in Burger and Gochfeld 1994) Introduced predators with well-documented neg-ative impacts include cats (e.g., Ashmole et al 1994), dogs (e.g., Everett 1988), rats (e.g., Hobson
et al 1999), mice (e.g., Drost and Lewis 1995), stoats (e.g., Taylor and Tilly 1984), ferrets (e.g.,Moors and Atkinson 1984), hedgehogs (e.g., Monteiro et al 1996), raccoons (e.g., Hartman andEastman 1999), monkeys (e.g., Gochfeld et al 1994), and fox (e.g., Bailey 1993) Recognition ofthe detrimental impacts of introduced predators led to eradication programs in many seabird
FIGURE 17.2 A small sandbar in St Petersburg, Florida provides the only remaining local habitat where
these birds (pelicans, cormorants, gulls, terns, skimmers, and shorebirds) can roost to rest and preen their feathers (Photo by E A Schreiber.)
Trang 4breeding sites and the subsequent recovery of the seabirds (e.g., see discussions in Moors andAtkinson 1984, Drost and Lewis 1995, Taylor et al 2000) However, eradication programs should
be carefully planned and implemented, or they may have inadvertent negative impacts on the species
of concern (Howald et al 1999)
17.3.2 G RAZERS
Unregulated introductions of grazing animals cause habitat destruction through trampling of nests,overgrazing, and erosion resulting from overgrazing (Jones and Byrd 1979, Schreiber and Lee2000) In addition, some smaller grazers, such as rabbits, may also compete for nest space (Ainleyand Lewis 1974) Feral mammals, including grazers, are a widespread problem at many seabirdcolonies Introduced grazers significantly alter vegetation structure (Kirk and Racey 1991) anddestroy habitat for use by seabirds (Figure 17.3) In the Seychelles, grazing hares appear to prevent
the regeneration of Cauarina equisetifolia, a tree important for breeding seabirds (Kirk and Racey
1991) The impact of introduced grazers on seabirds, although less obvious than that for introducedpredators, has been documented for many species, including rabbits (e.g., Monteiro et al 1996),hares (e.g., Kirk and Racey 1991), goats (e.g., Keegan et al 1994), and sheep (e.g., Schwartz 1994)
In addition, Jones and Byrd (1979) found impacts on seabirds from introduced cattle, caribou, deer,elk, and musk oxen Removing introduced grazers from colonies allows seabird populations toregenerate (e.g., McChesney and Tershy 1998)
17.3.3 P LANTS
For some seabirds, specific vegetative communities or individual plant species are important, oreven critical, elements of nesting habitat (Feare et al 1997) Introduced plants often dramaticallychange terrestrial landscapes and make them unsuitable for use by seabirds Plants may colonizeareas that previously contained few to no plants, interfering with nesting by species that requireopen ground Introduced plants may also crowd out native species used by seabirds for nesting
For example, in the Seychelles, the spread of epi bleu (Stachytarpheta jamaicensis), an introduced plant, has reduced suitable nesting habitat for Sooty Terns (Sterna fuscata, Feare et al 1997) An introduced cane grass (Arundo donax) in the Azores archipelago is blamed for major losses of suitable burrowing ground for the Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea; Hamer, cited in
Monteiro et al 1996)
FIGURE 17.3 Sheep grazing in a Magellanic Penguin colony reduces habitat quality through trampling,
overgrazing, and erosion (Photo by P D Boersma.)
Trang 5Humans can spread detrimental species to seabird breeding areas (Van Driesche and VanDriesche 2000) Increased travel to, and settlement in, remote areas is also increasing the threat
of unwanted introductions of such species as mice and rats Furthermore, seabird populations mayalso be threatened by diseases carried by introduced species (de Lisle et al 1990) Efforts toprevent the further introduction of nonnative species into seabird colonies and efforts to controland eliminate species from colonies where they have been introduced are valuable conservationmeasures
17.4 HUMAN HARVEST OF SEABIRDS
Seabirds have been exploited directly and indirectly throughout human history, and avian extinctionshave followed in the wake of human exploration and settlement for at least a millennium (Steadman
1995, 1997) The demise of the Great Auk (Pinguinis impennis) is an early example This flightless
seabird flourished in massive numbers in the North Atlantic from the Arctic Circle to Massachusetts.Because they were flightless, Great Auks and their eggs were easy to harvest (Wilcove 1999) Earlyexplorers and sailors began harvesting Great Auks in the late 1400s, and the last two great aukswere killed in 1844 (Allen 1876) Although human consumption has driven few other seabirds intoextinction in the last 200 years, human exploitation continues to be a significant factor in the decline
of many seabird populations (Steadman 1997, Schreiber and Lee 2000) Humans have harvestedseabirds for food (commercial, subsistence, and recreational), ornamentation (e.g., feathers), cloth-ing (e.g., gloves), and oil
17.4.1 H UNTING
At the turn of the century, many seabirds were still heavily harvested by humans, and it is surprisingthat more species were not lost due to hunting for food, feathers, and oil During the late 19th andearly 20th centuries, ornamental feathers on women’s hats were highly fashionable in both Europeand North America, and many birds, including seabirds, were killed to supply the millinery trade.Between 1897 and 1914, over 3.5 million seabirds were killed for their feathers in the centralPacific Ocean alone (Spennemann 1998) Some seabird species are rich in fat deposits, makingthem valuable for their oil During the 19th and early 20th centuries, production of penguin oilresulted in the killing of millions of adults A single company in the Falkland Islands rendered405,000 birds for their oil in 1867 alone (Sparks and Soper 1987) Although there is a moreresponsible and sustainable attitude to harvesting seabirds today, there are regions where huntingcontinues to threaten seabird populations In Newfoundland, 300,000 to 725,000 murres are shotannually, which may be more than the murre population can sustain (Elliot et al 1991) In WestGreenland, hunters kill 283,000 to 386,000 murres annually (Falk and Durinck 1992), and murrepopulations may have declined by 80 to 90% (Kampp et al 1994)
17.4.2 E GGING
The collection of eggs as a food source has probably occurred everywhere humans have come intocontact with seabird colonies (Cott 1953, Boersma and Parrish 1998) Eggs were consumed bysailors on long voyages, and local settlers used eggs as an important protein source (Spennemann1998) In 1897, over 700,000 eggs were taken from penguin colonies along the coast of SouthAfrica, and during a 30-year period, over 13,000,000 eggs were collected from the Cape Islands
of South Africa (Frost et al 1976, Shelton et al 1984) Egging can have community-level effects
For example, harvest of Jackass Penguin (Spheniscus demersus) eggs has been identified as the primary factor that initiated the replacement of this species by the Cape Gannet (Morus capensis;
Crawford 1987) While egging is no longer common nor commercial for most seabirds (Yorio et
Trang 6al 1999), egging continues to have a significant impact on others (e.g., Canada, Blanchard 1994;the Caribbean, Schreiber and Lee 2000; Greenland, P D Boersma unpublished).
17.5 HUMAN INTRUSIONS IN SEABIRD COLONIES
While not as obvious as the impacts of hunting or direct habitat destruction, the negative impact
of human visitors to seabird colonies, particularly tourists, is extensively documented (e.g., wal 1978, Anderson and Keith 1980, van Halewyn and Norton 1984, Rodway et al 1996) Theseimpacts commonly include nest desertion, temporary nest abandonment, increased risk of predation,and, ultimately, reduced breeding success (see Burger and Gochfeld 1983, 1993)
Manu-17.5.1 T OURISM
Humans are traveling in ever-increasing numbers to previously remote areas throughout the globe.The World Tourism Organization estimates that nature tourism generates 7% of all internationaltravel expenditure (noted in Lindberg et al 1997) Nature-based tourism is also one of the fastestgrowing segments of the tourist industry, growing at an annual rate between 10 and 30% (Lindberg
et al 1997) A positive aspect of this trend is that people who have close encounters with natureare more likely to support conservation measures
Tourism in the Antarctic increased from under 300 people/year in the 1950s, to over 5,500people/year in the early 1990s (Enzenbacher 1993, Kenchington 1989) In the Galapagos Islands,tourist numbers grew from negligible levels in 1970 to over 60,000 in 1998 (Damsgard 1999) AtPunta Tombo, Argentina, the number of tourists at a penguin colony grew from a few hundred perseason (September through April) in the early 1970s to over 55,000 in the late 1990s (Boersmaunpublished) The presence of tourists in or near colonies can decrease bird numbers and must becarefully managed Tourists trampled approximately 28% of all burrows at a penguin colony in thePunihuil Islands, Chile (Simeone and Schlatter 1998) Tourists may also cause adult seabirds toabandon nests, making eggs and chicks susceptible to predation (DesGranges and Reed 1981) or
to temperature extremes and other inclement weather (Hunt 1972) However, tourist impacts can
be reduced through thoughtful management (Tershey et al 1997) and tourism is often compatiblewith seabird colonies when proper management practices are in place (Figure 17.4)
FIGURE 17.4 Well-controlled ecotourism can often coexist with successful nesting by seabirds and is an
important part of promoting conservation Here a tourist (M Gochfeld) to Antarctica learns about King
Penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) (Photo by J Burger.)
Trang 717.5.2 S CIENTIFIC R ESEARCH
Scientific research programs may have short- or long-term impacts on seabird populations if theyare not implemented carefully (see summaries in Rodway et al 1996, Carney and Sydeman 1999,Nisbet 2000, Carney and Sydeman 2000) Seabirds have varying responses to researcher distur-bance, and while some are unaffected by it, others are susceptible to being disturbed Some
populations of Atlantic Puffins (Fratercula arctica) readily desert their eggs when disturbed by researchers (Rodway et al 1996), and Adélie Penguin (Pygoscelis papua) populations decreased
in one colony as a result of disturbance associated with scientific studies (Woehler et al 1991)
Studies on tailed Tropicbirds (Phaethon rubricauda) and Brown (Sula leucogaster) and footed Boobies (S sula) indicate that these species are not particularly susceptible to human
Red-disturbance (Schreiber 1994, 1999) With appropriate precautions, researchers can often reducetheir impact and conduct research without decreasing nesting success (see discussions in Burgerand Gochfeld 1993, Nisbet 2000)
Appropriate and constructive management decisions cannot be made without quality data onthe species involved (Figure 17.5) We are dependent on researchers to provide these data (Schreiber2000) It is impossible to effectively manage seabird populations without knowing such basicbiological information as clutch size, incubation period, fledging period, energetic constraints, andthe threats seabirds face during each of their reproductive phases Furthermore, without understand-ing the ways in which different threats, such as predators, pollutants, or humans, affect seabirds,
it is impossible to design effective management plans
In most cases, the risks to individual birds from research activity can be drastically reduced
by careful research design and implementation This may involve limiting time in the colony,
FIGURE 17.5 Research is a vital part of conservation because it provides the basis for sound management.
Here R W Schreiber replaces a worn band on a Laysan Albatross on Midway Island in order to continue following birds banded 30 years before (Photo by E A Schreiber.)
Trang 8visiting colonies only during specific periods during the day or reproductive season, or alteringinvestigator behavior For example, some birds are less disturbed by slow movement through acolony (as opposed to running), by indirect approaches, and by not making eye contact (Burgerand Gochfeld 1994) In some cases, noninvasive methods can be used, such as collecting feathersfor heavy metal analysis or collecting nonviable eggs, and taking some nest and colony sitemeasurements after the birds are no longer present In other cases, the conservation problem may
be best addressed by collecting individuals to assess physiological parameters, determining taminant effects, and providing voucher specimens for historical archives (Remsen 1995, Schreiber2000) Furthermore, many techniques, such as banding and physiological studies, are critical toobtain data on reproductive success, long-term survival, and population dynamics, which in turnaid in managing populations
con-17.5.3 O THER D ISTURBANCES
Impacts to seabirds from disturbance can be subtle For example, some seabirds are negativelyaffected by the presence of artificial lights (Reed et al 1985) Negative impacts on seabirds havealso been attributed to noise and disturbance from helicopters (McKnight and Knoder 1979),motorboats (Burger 1998), and personal watercraft (Burger and Leonard 2000) Recreational activ-ities can reduce reproductive success if unmanaged (Burger 1995) However, recreation does notnecessarily present a direct conflict with seabird conservation if such activities are carefully man-aged (Burger et al 1995, Knight and Gutzwiller 1995)
Human recreational activity at nesting colonies has the potential to cause mortality, reducereproductive success, or degrade nesting areas Some seabirds are adversely affected by anyvisitation or disturbance (Burger and Gochfeld 1993, Yorio and Quintana 1996), but others habituate
to the presence of humans (Yorio and Boersma 1992, Burger and Gochfeld 1999) If well managed,human presence appears to have little impact on the reproductive success of many habituated birds(Burger and Gochfeld 1983, Yorio and Boersma 1992)
17.6 OTHER THREATS TO SEABIRDS
17.6.1 C LIMATE C HANGE , P OLLUTION , AND C OMMERCIAL F ISHING
Several other major threats face seabird populations Three of these are so significant that they aretreated in separate chapters: climate change (Chapter 7), pollution (Chapter 15), and commercialfishing (Chapter 16) For many seabird populations, these threats, individually or in combination,present the greatest danger to their persistence (Figure 17.6)
17.6.2 I NTERSPECIFIC C OMPETITION AND T HREAT I NTERACTIONS
Interspecific competition is a major factor in the decline of some seabird populations For example,
at some seabird colonies, competition from increasing numbers of gulls is the primary cause ofpopulation declines (Anderson and Devlin 1999) But many gull species are increasing because
of human activity, such as the presence of garbage dumps (Hunt 1972) and offal from fishingoperations
Often, more than one threat faces a seabird population and these can act synergistically For
example, Williams (1995) concluded that the Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) suffered
steep population declines because of a combination of human disturbance, habitat modification,introduced predators and grazers, and fisheries impacts Multiple physiological stresses from severalsources can produce severe problems (Livingstone et al 1992) It is not difficult to imagine apopulation already affected by pollution, predators, and/or disease might be more heavily impacted
by climate change or fishing impacts than would an otherwise healthy population
Trang 917.7 LEGAL PROTECTION
Laws protecting seabirds differ dramatically from country to country and from state to state.However, the principles of legal protection are similar in most jurisdictions, and we focus primarily
on U.S law for illustrative purposes In the U.S., legal protection for seabirds occurs almost entirely
at the state, federal, and international levels No major state or federal law focuses exclusively onseabirds Rather, legal protection of seabirds is found within laws protecting wildlife generally or
in laws regulating fishing State and federal law is a combination of statutes passed by electedofficials, regulations promulgated by implementing agencies, agency policies, and decisions bycourts International law, however, consists primarily of treaties between countries (Figure 17.7)
17.7.1 F EDERAL P ROTECTIONS
Federal law provides the primary protective regime for most wildlife, including seabirds (fordiscussions of U.S wildlife law, see Bean and Rowland 1997, Musgrave et al 1998) The firststatute passed by Congress to protect wildlife was the Lacey Act of 1900 (current version at 16U.S.C §§ 701 and 3371–3378 and 18 U.S.C § 42), which was passed because of growing national
concern over the demise of the Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) and the decimation of
heron and egret populations for the millinery trade Although the Lacey Act did not provide explicitprotection for seabirds, it provided for federal enforcement of state laws protecting wildlife byprohibiting interstate transfer of wildlife killed in violation of state laws
The first major U.S wildlife statute that included protection of seabirds was the Migratory Bird
Act of 1913 (Ch 145, 37 Stat 828, 847 [repealed 1918]) Passed because of continuing concern
over reductions in bird populations, this ground-breaking law prohibited the hunting of migratory
FIGURE 17.6 Oil pollution kills a large number of seabirds Here, an oiled adult Laysan Albatross transfers
oil to its chick (Photo by E A Schreiber.)
Trang 10game birds, insectivorous birds, and other migratory nongame birds (which included seabirds)except in compliance with federal regulations This Act was quickly challenged as unconstitutional
(U.S v Shauer, 214 F 154, E.D Ark 1914) Recognizing the weakness of its legal arguments, the
federal government abandoned its legislative approach Instead, the federal government enteredinto an international treaty in 1916 with Great Britain (on behalf of Canada) to provide these sameprotections (Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds) The U.S eventually entered intotreaties protecting migratory birds with Mexico (1936), Japan (1972), and the former Soviet Union(1976) as well The 1916 treaty was implemented by Congress’ passage of the Migratory BirdTreaty Act of 1917 (MBTA: current version at 16 U.S.C §§ 703–711) Ruling on a legal challenge
to the constitutionality of the MBTA, the U.S Supreme Court held that Congress’ treaty gave it
power to protect migratory birds (Missouri v Holland, 252 U.S 416, 1920).
Another well-known U.S statute protecting several seabirds is the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C §§ 1531–1543) Under the ESA, listed species are protected and conserved,habitat critical to the species is to be preserved, and federal actions are not to jeopardize the species(see Clark 1994 and Bean and Rowland 1997 for discussions of the ESA’s basic provisions) TheESA also implements the Convention on International Trade in Species of Wild Fauna and Flora,
an international treaty (discussed in more detail below) The list of endangered species protectedunder the ESA includes several seabirds threatened both nationally and internationally (see Table17.1) However, the ESA’s protections apply only to the boundaries of the U.S., U.S territorialwaters, and persons under U.S jurisdiction Despite these limitations, the ESA has providedsignificant benefits for some seabirds For example, U.S courts have affirmed regulations promul-
gated under the ESA that protect Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat (Marbled Murrelet v Babbitt,
83 F.3d 1060, 9th Cir 1996)
Indirect protection of seabirds is found in federal regulation of various fishing methods (e.g.,gill nets, long lines, driftnets, etc.), such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation andManagement Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C §§ 1801–1882), Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980(16 U.S.C §§ 2901–2911), Driftnet Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C §§ 1826, 1857–1859), andHigh Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C §§ 1826a–1826c) Becauseseabirds are often killed during fishing efforts, regulation of fishing methods provides significantprotection to seabirds
FIGURE 17.7 King Penguins nest by the thousands on Maquerie Island around the massive drums (digestive
tanks) used to boil penguins in the late 1800’s to make oil (Photo by J Burger.)
Trang 1117.7.2 S TATE P ROTECTIONS
Section 6 of the ESA requires federal cooperation with states and creates a process through whichindividual states can enter into management and cooperative agreements for listed species Inaddition to having authority to administer aspects of the ESA, many states prepare their own list
of threatened species, and legal protections often accompany those lists (see Musgrave and Stein
1993) Some states provide separate and supplemental legal protection of seabirds, though lawsdiffer from state to state (see generally, Musgrave and Stein 1993) For example, Washington Statestatutes provide that wildlife designated by a state commission as protected cannot be hunted (RCW77.08.010 (19)) Through state regulations, the commission designated all seabirds as protectedwildlife (WAC 232-12-011) Therefore, no seabird can be killed in Washington State In addition,Washington State law prohibits the taking of protected wildlife (including seabirds) Here, “taking”includes the destruction of eggs or nests as well as killing (RCW 77.15.130) Unlike the ESA,these state protections apply to all seabird species, not just those listed as threatened or endangered.However, most of these state protections overlap with protections contained in the MBTA
17.7.3 I NTERNATIONAL P ROTECTIONS
Even for most lawyers, international law is a source of much confusion, and the concept ofinternational law is difficult to grasp (for more in-depth discussions of international environmentaland wildlife law, see van Heijnsbergen 1997, UNEP 1997, and Kiss 2000) These conceptualdifficulties arise because, unlike federal law, international law has no constitutional foundation(e.g., the U.S Constitution), elected legislative body, or implementing or enforcing agencies Nor
is there an equivalent of the U.S court system International law is more of a shaking of hands, amere agreement between independent entities that depends almost entirely on goodwill and coop-eration for success An “international law” is usually just an agreement signed between two ormore nations, and is usually referred as a “treaty” or “convention.”
TABLE 17.1
Seabirds Listed under the U.S Endangered Species Act
Listed Species
Found within U.S.
Found outside U.S.
Galapagos Penguin (Spheniscus mendiculus) No Yes
Amsterdam Albatross (Diomedea amsterdamensis) No Yes
Short-tailed Albatross (Phoebastria albatrus) No Yes
Madeira Petrel (Pterodroma madeira) No Yes
Cahow (Bermuda Petrel) (P cahow) No Yes
Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel (P phaeopygia sandwichensis) Yes No
Mascarene Black Petrel (P aterrima) No Yes
Newell’s Townsend’s Shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) Yes No
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) Yes Yes
Christmas Island Frigatebird (Fregata andrewsi) No Yes
Audouin’s Gull (Larus audouinii) No Yes
Relict Gull (L relictus) No Yes
Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii dougallii) Yes Yes
Least Tern (S antillarum) Yes Yes
California Least Tern (S antillarum browni) Yes No
Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus) Yes Yes
Note: Species are listed in order listed within ESA regulations.