Bill Overview
Title: Migratory Birds of the Americas Conservation Enhancements Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and revises the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which provides financial assistance for projects to promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds.
Sponsors: Rep. Kind, Ron [D-WI-3]
Target Audience
Population: People involved or interested in the conservation of neotropical migratory birds
Estimated Size: 1000000
- The bill focuses on the conservation of neotropical migratory birds, species which travel between North, Central, South America, and the Caribbean.
- People involved in ornithology, bird watching, and ecological tourism will benefit from efforts to conserve these birds, as it preserves biodiversity.
- Local communities in regions where these migratory birds are prevalent may benefit economically from increased tourism and ecological conservation efforts.
- Conservation workers and volunteers who engage in these projects directly will be affected by this bill as it secures funding and project continuity.
Reasoning
- The target population includes bird watchers, conservationists, and local communities in migratory paths who will benefit economically and environmentally from this policy.
- Not all Americans will be impacted by this bill—mainly those involved in or benefiting from bird conservation will see changes.
- The limited budget and scope mean only a fraction of projects and communities can be supported initially, prioritizing key migratory routes and towns.
- Many rural communities in migration paths may see increased economic benefits from ecotourism, but urban areas with little bird activity might see no impact.
- Bird watching is a popular hobby, but direct financial or wellbeing impacts will primarily relate to people working in bird-related fields or living in relevant areas.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Conservationist (Vermont)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy brings necessary funds and attention to migratory birds that are often overlooked.
- We can expand our current projects and engage more community members in conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Birdwatching Tour Guide (Texas)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could boost tourism and interest, leading to more business opportunities.
- Conservation efforts funded by this bill might improve local bird habitats significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired, Birdwatcher (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see some official support for the birds I love watching during migration seasons.
- Anytime there's more funding for conservation, it's a win for the natural environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Biologist at a Nonprofit (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our projects depend heavily on funding, and this bill could sustain our ongoing research significantly.
- Hope it leads to a better understanding of migratory patterns and population health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Ecotourism Business Owner (Alaska)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater conservation efforts could mean a more vibrant bird-viewing experience, attractive to more tourists.
- The policy can enhance habitat preservation directly benefiting my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Urban Wildlife Educator (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could enrich educational materials and programs about birds in urban areas.
- While urban wildlife has many challenges, understanding migration can inspire new conservation tactics.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Chicago)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can potentially open up more resources and opportunities for my research and networking.
- Important for urban areas to understand their role in migratory path conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If it encourages more careful use of lands for the sake of birds, I'm all for it.
- Stronger conservation can co-exist with ranching, as long as it's well-managed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (North Dakota)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Further conservation measures mean healthier ecosystems, which can be beneficial for agriculture.
- I hope there will be incentives for farmers like me to maintain bird-friendly practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Policy Worker (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having more funding directed to the cause strengthens ongoing advocacy and policy effectiveness.
- Important that policies like these are enacted and supported by lawmakers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Year 2: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Year 3: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $6500000, High: $7500000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring adequate funding does not surpass historical spending bounds without clear additional benefits.
- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of new initiatives or enhancements tied to the policy.
- Monitoring the distribution and effectiveness of funding across various projects.