New at Reason

June 26, 2007

Brian Seasholes loves bald eagles and wishes the Endanged Species Act would stop making victims out of them.

Comments

|6.26.07 @ 1:32PM|#

There's something about the image of the land-owner destroying the (potential?) eagles nest (to protect his own nest) that so beautifully demonstrates the true effect of government. Heartbreaking.

|6.26.07 @ 1:36PM|#

It looks like the government bureaucrats want to treat the eagle the same way it treats its other welfare recipients.

|6.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#

Since then, the population has continued to grow at the very healthy rate of about 8 percent annually, reaching at least 9,921 pairs in the continental U.S. this year.

Do the math. In a couple hundred years bald eagle will destry our way of life because of their fecundity. Just like those danged Muslims. Refer to earlier thread "The Loathe Boat, Exciting and New"

|6.26.07 @ 1:59PM|#

"at least 9,921 pairs in the continental U.S."

I was in Alaska a few springs ago and saw huge numbers of bald eagles congregated in the trees along the banks of a 5 mile stretch of river.

Endangered? Looked like pigeons in an urban park.

|6.26.07 @ 2:10PM|#

"For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perched on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him.

"With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping & Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country . . .

"I am on this account not displeased that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For the Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America . . . He is besides, though a little vain & silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on. - Benjamin Franklin

http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/turkey.html

|6.26.07 @ 2:11PM|#

At a lake where my parents live in south-central Nebraska, we see hundreds of bald eagles every winter season. The local hydro power plant keeps the water warm and moving, and the eagles nest all along the banks of the canal.

Also, regarding the ddt ban: http://3billionandcounting.com/

Chris Christner|6.26.07 @ 2:29PM|#

The National Audubon Society explains that, "nearly everyone agrees that the key to the eagle's resurgence-even more so than the Endangered Species Act-was the banning of the use of the insecticide DDT in this country in 1972." DDT led to pervasive reproductive failures in the birds...

That's probably not true [Link]:

But by 1960 - 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use - the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a "widespread loss of suitable habitat," but noted that "illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles," according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.

A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.

In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT.

|6.26.07 @ 3:01PM|#

What about the eagles who only have a receding hairline? Who's looking out for them?

|6.26.07 @ 3:03PM|#

I used to work for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and let me tell you, our desire to control the land of Ed Contoski was all-consuming.

Michael|6.26.07 @ 3:29PM|#

Three cheers for banning DDT!! We 'saved' thousands of bald eagles (not) and let millions of humans (continue to) die. What a damn shame.

|6.26.07 @ 3:38PM|#

It turns out that the bald eagle was never really endangered in numbers. It seems that most of them had combovers which made them look Trump-like.

|6.26.07 @ 3:47PM|#

For everyones information 200 years ago the word "bald" meant "white headed" in the english language. We now take it to mean hairless.

|6.26.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Hey Stephen, you father, Cliff Clavin is waiting at the bar down the street. He has a seat for you next to Norm's. Ya twit.

Chris Christener - the last line of your pull-quote, "In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT" says to me that it probably is true, no? I might misread? Also, while the "leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles," continues to be shootings, this has no reflection on the fact that eagles had trouble reproducing, i.e. shells to thin for fetuses to survive. These reproductive issues are directly related to DDT and a decline in the number of reproducing pairs.

The Bald Eagle is an incredible bird. I live in Maryland and we have a nesting pair that returns every year. I live within 10 miles of a major metro city! Tell me they were in need of more "natural" habitat and I'll have to disagree.
MV

Miggs|6.26.07 @ 4:20PM|#

Grünfeld Defence | June 26, 2007, 3:03pm | #

I used to work for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and let me tell you, our desire to control the land of Ed Contoski was all-consuming.

Good afternoon Dan.

Chris Christner|6.26.07 @ 4:34PM|#

Michael wrote:

[This] has no reflection on the fact that eagles had trouble reproducing, i.e. shells to thin for fetuses to survive. These reproductive issues are directly related to DDT and a decline in the number of reproducing pairs.

Care to give a reference? Here's one that supports my contention that DDT was safe for eagles:

US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs, according to a 1966 report published in the Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.

The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the United States between 1961 and 1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.

One of the most notorious DDT myths is that it thinned bird egg shells. However, a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds likewise indicated that DDT is not associated with egg shell thinning.

wsdave|6.26.07 @ 4:45PM|#

Michael,
"The Bald Eagle is an incredible bird. I live in Maryland and we have a nesting pair that returns every year. I live within 10 miles of a major metro city! Tell me they were in need of more "natural" habitat and I'll have to disagree."

+1 on that. When I lived in Seattle, we had Baldies in the trees next door. That's fully in the city limits.

Randolph Carter|6.26.07 @ 5:37PM|#

Did anyone catch the recent John Tierney article in the Science Times about DDT/Rachel Carson's legacy? It was pretty good, but the next week all the letters to the science section said "nuh-uh!"
Their main contention was that even if Silent Spring was a huge load of bullshit, it raised awareness of environmental issues so it was a net good.

joe|6.26.07 @ 6:01PM|#

I wonder how long the chain of lies can go?

From "ESA did nothing" to "DDT did nothing" to "the DDT ban killed millions of people."

This thread is an ode to power of propaganda.

joe|6.26.07 @ 6:04PM|#

Randoph Carter,

You mean the Rachel Carson who wrote this:

No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story - the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. ...

What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. ... Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. ...

Practical advice should be 'Spray as little as you possibly can' rather than 'Spray to the limit of your capacity' ..., Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.

That's a quotation from Silent Spring, Randy.

It is amazing how little reality intrudes on people who really, really want to believe something.

|6.26.07 @ 6:50PM|#

It's time for a new, more effective environmentalism based on cooperation and positive incentives, not conflict and punishment.

20 posts and not one about inserting "government policy" in place of "environmentalism"? I know, TOO obvious.

ESA abuse far outweighs ESA success - whole thing should be sh*t canned. Gov't should buy the requisite habitat for critters at market value if they're worth saving.

|6.26.07 @ 7:58PM|#

"It is amazing how little reality intrudes on people who really, really want to believe something."
You said it joe, watch 'em spin and spin...Like fish in a barrel, but here goes:
Chris Cristner-you cite Fox news and "eco-imperialism.com." Now THAT will show all those silly scientists, who just got about 10 years of specialized education and then more years of intense on the job hands on experience. What do they know, you can do 5 minutes of internet googling and hey, you can forget their wacky claims!
This guy Seasholes article is worse than a Moynihan one! Essentially, he admits eagles were doing poorly, but then makes the following "powerful" argument:
When the eagle is at last delisted, we'll likely hear it championed as an ESA success story. The reality is more complicated.

The National Audubon Society explains that, "nearly everyone agrees that the key to the eagle's resurgence-even more so than the Endangered Species Act"
He has a quote, and not just any quote, but one from a group that LIKES birds, so there you go! Of course, it does say "even more so" which implies that his source finds the ESA important to the resurgence, but what the hell, it wasn't a very good argument anyway, was it? Who could comment on the lame anecedote about the land-owner...
SO follow the bouncing ball, pre-ESA eagles were doing bad. Now they are doing much, much better. And Seasholes is bitching because they won't hurry up and de-list so they can get endangered again. Whatever...

|6.26.07 @ 9:15PM|#

"Tragically, the ESA has pitted land owner against bird."

Yeah, everything was peachy between man and bird before the ESA was passed. Good thing no one wants to destroy any bald eagle habitat for development.

Quietly, many of these people who might otherwise relish having an eagle's nest or other endangered species on their land are taking steps to keep those species out, to avoid being clobbered by the government's harsh penalties.

"I've seen eagle's nests where people climbed up the trees and knocked them out."

Some people are pricks. That their motive is money is supposed to make them the good guys?

Dan Clore|6.26.07 @ 10:07PM|#

"For everyones information 200 years ago the word 'bald' meant 'white headed' in the english language. We now take it to mean hairless."

The oldest citation in the OED comes from 1688 and states that the bird is called "bald" because its white head makes it look hairless.

*****

We have bald eagles wild in the area where I live. We can often see them flying around, occasionally coming very close to our house.

However, not everyone seems to like these beautiful, majestic birds, which provide most of us with so much enjoyment. One was killed by someone who left poisoned fish out for them. Another was shot. Since no one was caught, one can only speculate on the motives for this.

Considering where I'm posting this, I'll add that getting to see these eagles flying free adds a great deal of value to our home (to us, apparently not to everyone). Consider that when you talk about property rights.

Chris Christner|6.26.07 @ 10:30PM|#

Ken spluttered:

You cite Fox news and "eco-imperialism.com." Now THAT will show all those silly scientists, who just got about 10 years of specialized education and then more years of intense on the job hands on experience.

Wow, without a single reference, you criticize my references! Shameless.

"Silly scientists," I like it, it's got alliteration I can dance to and it describes the situation succinctly (see, I can do it too). Congrats on the only interesting part of your posting. Care to spend a few minutes in "5 minutes of internet googling" and provide some facts to back up your claims?

|6.26.07 @ 11:31PM|#

You see, I don't have to do internet googling to 'back up' a scientific consensus. I defer to the experts in their areas of expertise, and I sure as crap don't let Fox news be my trusted source for contrarian information...

|6.27.07 @ 1:11AM|#

Are we a nation of retards or what? 9-10 thousand ISNT endangered?

Hell, I could kill 9-10 thousand of them if I put my mind to it - wouldnt even take half the summer.

And just to prove it to you, if they are taken off the endangered species list, then I will hunt down all 9000 of them and kill them all for trophies.

Then, when they really ARE extinct,
Ill stuff the corpses and sell them to rednecks as lost "Americana".

Kieran Suckling|6.27.07 @ 1:22AM|#

This article is full of errors. The bald eagle was listed as an endangered species in 1967, not 1973. This shoots a rather ugly whole through the excited assertion that DDT was banned before the listing of the eagle.

While pitting the 1972 banning of DDT against the ESA, it fails to note that the listing of the bald eagle, brown pelican, American peregrine falcon, and Arctic peregrine falcon as endangered species in 1967 was an important impetus for the 1972 band. The endangered listing of these species was one of the primary arguments made by proponents of the ban.

The bald eagle was first described by scientists as endangered in the 1920s. By the early 1940s- before DDT was in widespread agricultural use- the bald eagle was already extirpated from many eastern and midwestern states, and had significantly declined in most others. DDT could not and was not the cause of these massive declines.

Conversely, while the banning of DDT was essential to stopping the declines recorded in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, it was just one aspect of a much broader conservation program. Habitat was purchased, restored and protected from destruction. And yes this included protection of habitat on federal, state, and private lands. The killing and harrassing of eagles was largely stopped through aggressive enforcement of the ESA's "take" prohibition. Reintroduction programs translocated eggs, fostered nestlings and hacked eaglets in most of the eastern and midwestern states.

In all, the non-DDT related conservation efforts constituted a massive and successful effort over a forty year period. They were carried out in all 48 states and the District of Columbia. No disinterested researcher could possibly ignore all that work and a simply say the recovery was entirely achieved by the DDT ban.

Also, its a considerable stretch to say the Clinton administration declared the bald eagle fully recovered in 1999. The administration "proposed" the eagle for deslisting as a recovered species and opened up that proposal for public comment. What they found out during the comment period was that two of the five federal recovery teams objected because the recovery goals had not been met (mostly in terms of distribution rather than total numbers) and many state agency's objected because the removal of the ESA would effect the removal of the very protections which recovered the species. The state demanded that a new post-ESA habitat protection scheme be developed first. And this what was done in May 2007 with the Bush administration's definition of "disturb" under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Thus the eagle is now ready to come off the list.

Finally, the current bald numbers are larger then you suggest. The most recent estimate put the population over 11,000 pairs. For more information on population and management trends, see: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/eagle/

|7.4.07 @ 8:56AM|#

We also had an article in our local paper by Seasholes on the day that the eagle was delisted. In our area we have land developers just waiting for the restrictions to be lifted. It will only take a short time in our area for the numbers of eagles to go down and this needs to be monitored. If landowners are interested in the money aspects, we can raise money ( adopt a manatee, adopt an eagles nest) and purchase some of these areas for small parks( we need the trees) or any other creative way of dealing with the situation. In our area the eagles, the wetlands, the air quality, issues are integral parts of the whole picture - preserving our environment for generations to come and educating our young.