Several other statutes contain similar provisions: the Bald Eagle Act, 

 16 U.S.C. |668; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. §1375. Both 

 Acts provide criminal penalties of up to a year in jail as well as civil 

 penalties. 



The important point about all of these statutes is that they provide 

 criminal and civil penalties for spillers who harm protected species. Since 

 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects almost all native North American birds, 

 virtually any spill which harms any bird will be a violation. Furthermore, 

 this Act has been very broadly construed by the courts to allow criminal 

 penalties for unintentional or negligent takings. 



In United States v. Corbin Farm Services , 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal . 

 1978), aff'd in part, 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978), three individuals were 

 charged with criminal violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One was an 

 employee of a company which distributed pesticides who advised farmers on 

 pesticides to get them to buy his company's products. Another was the owner 

 of an alfalfa field who had his property sprayed, and one was the actual 

 sprayer. The spraying killed 12 American widgeons, a species protected by 

 the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 



The defense was that the three individuals did not know birds used the 

 field and did not intend to harm them, and that the Act does not allow 

 criminal penalties for unintentional killing. The court rejected this read- 

 ing of the Act, holding that all the Government needed to show was that the 

 defendants sprayed the pesticide and that this action caused the deaths. The 

 defendants should have determined whether birds were feeding in the field 

 before they sprayed 



...When dealing with pesticides, the public is put on notice 

 that it should exercise care to prevent injury to the envi- 

 ronment. . .the MBTA can constitutionally be applied to impose 

 criminal penalties on those who did not intend to kill mi- 

 gratory birds... 444 F. Supp. at 536. 



This reasoning certainly applies to those who handle oil or hazardous sub- 

 stances. These individuals are clearly subject to jail sentences for negli- 

 gent spills which harm protected birds. 



Other courts have taken the same approach. In United States v. FMC Corp . . 

 572 F.2d 902 (2d Cir. 1978), the defendant was convicted of 18 counts of vio- 

 lating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the court imposed a $100 fine for 

 each count. The defendant manufactured pesticides and unintentionally allowed 

 a pesticide to leak into a pond. Ninety-two birds were killed when they 

 landed on the pond during migration. This case was different from the Corbin 

 Farms case in that the defendants in FMC Corp. were liable not for an action 

 which harmed birds, but for an omission ; the failure to prevent leakage. 



34 



