Hi Tweets,

I went and got a copy of the Wall Street Journal with the
Seattle Bald Eagle article (I got it because I received a
phone message indicating it was a bad article and that I
contributed to the awfulness of it all with a quote of mine
that was used). The reporter was clearly pursuing his own
vision of a story on Bald Eagles achieving "pest" levels in the
Seattle area. So, most of the article is on eagles harassing
birds in captivity at the Woodland Park Zoo, eagles killing
puppies, eagles raiding heronries, and eagles simply being the
territorial and sometimes aggressive predators that they are.
The article did end with a quote from one woman who is inspired
whenever she sees an eagle outside her Mercer Island home.
So, it wasn't entirely anti-eagle.

Now that bald eagles have returned to population levels that make
them (arguably) the most common diurnal raptor in western Washington,
there are plenty of stories, anecdotes for reporters to use to put
their desired "spin" on a story. The man who called me was concerned
that the favorable image for bald eagles, which took a long time to
establish, is being eroded by stories like the one in the Wall Street
Journal. As for me, I am more interested in understanding the bird
for what it is, not for what the image-makers have created. Does
a species have to be entirely attractive and noble to be worthy
of conservation?

With delisting on the horizon and the soon-to-be relaxing of regulatory
actions on the behalf of eagles and eagle habitat, it is time to ask
the question, "How do we keep common species common?" and, perhaps
more importantly, in the context of this discussion, "Why does a
species have to have a squeaky clean image to be considered worthy
of conservation?".

Kelly McAllister