Livestock Producers Get New Authority to Cull Black Vultures, Overriding Federal Bird Protections

If you’re a livestock producer, you know that black vultures (Coragyps atratus) aren't just annoying; they can be a serious threat to newborn animals. The Black Vulture Relief Act steps in to address this by giving livestock producers and their employees a new, specific authorization to “take” these birds—meaning they can capture, kill, disperse, or transport the carcass—if they reasonably believe the vulture is about to hurt, kill, or destroy their livestock. This is a big deal because it grants a carve-out from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the federal law that usually protects these birds.

The Fine Print on Vulture Control

The core of the bill is SEC. 2, which defines exactly who can act and under what conditions. This new authority is strictly limited to the producer or an employee actively working on the farm, and it only kicks in when they have a “reasonable belief” that the vulture poses a direct threat to the animals defined under the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act. Think of a farmer seeing a vulture circling a calving pen—under this law, they gain the immediate authority to intervene, even if that intervention involves lethal force. However, there’s a critical restriction: the bill explicitly bans the use of poison for taking or attempting to take a black vulture. This keeps a lid on indiscriminate killing that could harm other wildlife or domestic animals.

Reporting Requirements: The Catch

While the bill grants immediate relief to farmers, it tries to maintain some federal oversight through reporting. If a producer takes a black vulture under this new authority, they must submit an annual report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) by January 31st of the following year. This is where the logistics get interesting. The reporting requirement only goes into effect after the FWS Director creates and posts the official reporting form online. The Director has 180 days from the law’s enactment to get this form ready, and the bill mandates that the new form can’t be any more complicated than similar forms currently used for MBTA permitting. If the FWS is slow to create and publish this form, the reporting requirement is essentially on hold, meaning the actual number of vultures taken could be untracked for a period.

The Policy Trade-Off

For livestock producers, this bill is a clear win, offering a defense mechanism against a real threat to their livelihood without the cumbersome federal permitting process. For example, a rancher expecting a calf crop no longer has to wait for a permit to deal with a flock of aggressive vultures; they can act immediately based on their judgment. However, this relief comes at the cost of weakening the MBTA's protection for black vultures. The bill grants broad discretion based on a subjective standard—the “reasonable belief” of the producer—which could lead to vultures being taken in situations that the FWS might not have previously authorized. This is the trade-off: immediate, localized control for farmers versus the long-standing federal mandate to protect migratory bird populations. The success of the reporting system will be key to understanding the real-world impact on the vulture population.