Dennis, who probably burns the flag in his spare time :) sez:
>The "authorities" are killing ravens in Oregon and gulls in quite a few
>places because of their predatory nature, but raptors, hallowed birds that
>they are, may never be subject to this kind of "management." Can anyone
>marshall a good argument why it's OK to "control" ravens and gulls but not
>Bald Eagles?

The National Emblem? Is it time to pass a Constutional Amendment? :)

More seriously, in Alaska and Canada there would be no biological
argument against doing so. In the lower 48, the problem is much
more complex. In OR and WA, as you know, we're just reaching
the point where pair numbers and productivity are approaching
the goals of the recovery plan. Spending money to control
Bald Eagles while spending more money to increase them might
be confusing to people.

There would be difficult political problems, though. Some
ranchers still illegally kill Golden Eagles, large numbers in
Colorado, for instance, and I would guess Montana as well.
There is some weak evidence of a long-term downward trend in
golden eagle numbers in the Intermountain West. Can you imagine
the response of sheep ranchers if control were instituted
to protect an endangered prey species?

We tweeter types, who understand a bit of biology and population
ecology, have no problem in differentiating between a focused
predator control program instituted after careful study and
thought, and a rancher blasting every damned bird-of-prey
within shotgun range. Or indiscriminant carcass baiting.

But the public at large, and the politians they elect, are
likely to take acceptance of predator control for specific
biological reasons while rejecting general predator control
as being hypocritical, or purely political, or ... well
fill in the blanks.

A similar problem occurs with cows. Cows can be useful in
management in some cases, but it is difficult for those
of us involved in conservation to agree to such use. The
problem is that the ranching community jumps on any such
beneficial use of grazing as "evidence" that widespread
grazing is "necessary for the health of the land".

Unfortunately, when it comes to conservation issues it is
impossible to separate the technical from the political,
as a technically sound approach in one situation can
lead to political disaster that causes far more harm
in other areas.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>