of Appeals found that the definition of “take” in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was restricted to the sort of conduct engaged in by hunters and poachers. While acknowledging that some courts have held that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act reaches direct, though unintended, bird poison ing from toxic substances, the appellate court ruled that habitat destruction, leading indirectly to bird deaths, does not amount to a “taking” of a migratory bird within the meaning of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Id. at 303. Other courts have recognized that lawful commercial activity, such as logging, that is unrelated to hunting or poaching and not directed at birds does not constitute a crime under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. See, Curry v. U.S. Forest Sew., 988 F.Supp. 541 (W-D.Pa.1997) (<HOLDING>); Mahler v. U.S. Forest Sew., 927 F.Supp. 1559
holding that the delivery of the deed following a foreclosure sale was a ministerial act that was not prohibited by the automatic stay holding that the forest service did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to verify its model with ontheground data holding in suit under the administrative procedure act challenging us forest service approval of forest development plan that injury to aesthetic conservational or recreational interests is sufficient to confer standing holding that the act violates neither separation of powers nor principles of due process by allowing a victim veto that precludes application of the act as well as holding that the act is not void for vagueness and does not constitute a form of cruel or unusual punishment holding that migratory bird treaty act was not the proper statutory basis upon which to contest a forest service timber sale and concluding that the loss of migratory birds as a result of logging operations did not constitute a taking or killing prohibited by the migratory bird treaty act