RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY FRIENDS OF ANIMALS UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN AGREEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL COOPERATION

The Appellate Court remanded the case to the District Court of Oregon for deliberation of the merits of the Submitter’s NEPA and ESA claims. [...] To assess the effect of the removal study on the barred owl population, the Service assessed the size of each removal area as a percentage of the barred owl’s entire North American range. [...] Submitter’s Challenge to the Scientific Collecting Permit In its merits challenge to the scientific collecting permit, the Submitter argued that the Service unlawfully authorized this experiment because the Service did not explain how the experiment would directly advance the conservation of any migratory bird species, which Submitter asserted is contrary to the mandate under the four migratory bi. [...] 10 The Service rebutted the Submitter’s misinterpretation of the MBTA and the relevant Conventions, noting that the MBTA explicitly grants the Service discretion to promulgate regulations “compatible with the terms of the conventions to allow hunting, taking, capture, killing” etc. [...] Neither the Conventions, the MBTA, nor the Service’s regulations place the limit on what constitutes scientific take that the Submitter advanced.4 The Service also emphasized that its Administrative Record demonstrated that this experiment would advance the overall conservation of migratory birds that are at risk of extinction, consistent with the stated purpose of the Conventions and MBTA.