At 05:57 PM 7/5/99 +0000, Philip Lane wrote:

>Although I by and large agree with Don & Bud, I still have grave
>concerns about the survival of the Bald Eagle after de listing. I have
>doubts what the recovery data shows

What is there to doubt? The major cause of the loss of bald eagles
and peregrines was the use of pesticides like DDT. This is proven
far beyond correlation, in other words the biochemical processes
by which such pesticides interfere with the deposition of calcium
is known.

> not because of it's accuracy nor is
>it the expertise of those who have taken Bald Eagle counts. What
>concerns me is the overall life span of the data.

Either you are questioning expertise, or you aren't. Make up
your mind.

> Not much has been done
>to my knowledge to monitor raptor counts going back beyond thirty years.

I don't know just how long systematic monitoring of breeding bald
eagles has been underway. However, there are sources of data out
there that go back further than thirty years.

>So how accurate can the comparative numbers be?

The comparative numbers are accurate no matter how long they've
been taken. The question is whether or not the trend exposed
by the data verifies that the eagle is out of danger.

We know the biology of these birds very well, and we know the
effects of DDT et all very well. The population levels correlate
well with our expectations of first adding large quantities of
DDT et all into the environment, then later removing it. Historically
known nest territories have been re-occupied (and that knowledge
was based on data older than thirty years in many, many cases).

What more do you want?

If thirty years (assuming that's the correct figure, which I'm
not at all certain is true) isn't enough, how much do you demand?
300? 3000?

....

>Last but not least the
>Pacific Northwest's Eagle population may in fact be healthy and thriving
>for now but what about the next two decades of shopping malls and
>commercial development ?

They're still protected by the eagle protection act. If their
numbers drop dangerously low, they'll get listed again.

In general terms, though, you can argue "what if" for EVERY
species with somewhat specialized habitat needs. What you're
really saying is that ALL such species should be listed as
endangered on a "what if" basis.

This isn't a biology-based argument. The ESA is rooted in
biology. Other environmental law, such as the NFMA which
mandates the US Forest Service maintain the range of species
on NF land, goes beyond the biological mandate. That's a
good thing.

But the ESA is meant to provide for the recovery of species
based on biological criteria ONLY.

Remember the Bush administration refused to list the northern
spotted owl on political grounds, overruling the scientists
with the USF&W. Our side sued and one in this case, because
the law says that science, not politics, rules the ESA.

Now folks are saying, "well, sure, when science helps us
beat up politicos on the other side, we're all for science.
But a political decision to keep the bald eagle on the list
despite the biological analysis saying it's no longer necessary
would be cool and groovy!"

For conservationists to take up the argument on this basis
would be hypocritical.

> What I am saying in a nutshell is, before we
>brandish a label of recovery upon a specie. We as a nation should have
>cohesive recovery plan that includes habitat preservation.

There are plans for the preservation of bald eagle habitat. The
protection's not as strong in some circumstances as some would
like but to say it's not protected means you're not really up
to speed on the situation.



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net