habitat are tantamount to a proscribed “taking” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Id. The court contrasted the definition of “take” under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the definition of “take” under the Endangered Species Act, which defines “take” broadly to include “harass” and “harm,” in addition to the verbs included in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act definition. Id. at 303. The Ninth Circuit .D.Ind.1996) (declining to enjoin a proposed plan that complied with federal law, holding that indirect taking of migratory birds as a result of either habitat destruction or logging during nesting season did not fall within the Migratory Bird Treaty Act implementing regulations’ definition of a “taking”); Citizens Interested in Bull Run, Inc. v. Edrington, 781 F.Supp. 1502 (D.Or.1991) (<HOLDING>). The District of New Mexico declined to apply
recognizing that sale of a cutting of timber from devised real estate was a partial ademption holding that proposed improvements to an rs 2477 route in a national preserve is subject to regulation by the national park service holding a violation of the travel act holding that action challenging united states forest services approval of a timber sale became moot when challenged sale was halted as a result of an administrative appeal holding that diminishment of habitat for the northern spotted owl under a proposed national forest timber sale would not result in a taking in violation of the migratory bird treaty act