The dilemma of delisting

Bald eagles face hopeful, but uncertain, future

By SANDY LONG

UPPER DELAWARE REGION — The bald eagle is about to be removed from federal protections under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This news arrived just prior to the announcement of a $2,500 reward being offered by the Humane Society of the United States for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the party responsible for shooting a bald eagle near Dingmans Falls Visitor Center in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area in Pennsylvania on November 25, 2006. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PAGC) and the National Park Service (NPS) are together offering an additional $2,500 reward.

The tragic news is ample proof that, while eagle populations have recovered substantially, with more than 7,000 nesting pairs across the nation, eagles are not out of danger. Two remaining laws, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), will continue to offer protection to the birds, their nests and eggs, but these laws don’t directly protect habitat, a crucial factor in eagle survival.

How about habitat?

Peter Nye, Leader of the Endangered Species Unit, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), has been instrumental in restoring New York State’s eagle population. When efforts to resolve the bald eagle delisting were renewed by the USFWS, Nye worked on a national committee that addressed the issue in depth. The group’s professional organization, the Raptor Research Foundation (RRF), submitted a formal reply to the USFWS, detailing its position.

Chief among their concerns was the habitat issue. “The ESA has afforded protection to important bald eagle habitat on both public and private lands,” the RRF noted. “In considering whether to delist eagles, it is important to consider how these habitats might change without ESA protection and whether they will continue to be suitable to support existing populations of nesting and wintering eagles.”

“We predict that, without mandatory habitat protection measures, removing the Bald Eagle from protection under the ESA will result in a loss of habitat. Depending on how extensive these losses are, bald eagle populations could decrease soon after delisting,” notes the RRF reply.

The RRF recommended that the post-delisting monitoring period be increased from five to 20 years based on species longevity. It also recommended a new nationwide eagle population survey to obtain current baseline information against which to measure declines. And it urged the development and funding of a post-delisting monitoring plan to track breeding populations, breeding habitat, wintering eagles and to spot-check contaminants which continue to impact eagles.

A developing threat

Nye said that while the USFWS is trying its best, there are problems with the approach to future protection. “How eagle habitats will actually be protected into the future is the absolute key, and whether or not the USFWS ‘guidance’ to achieve this will work. As it stands, any of their recommendations are voluntary.”

Nye cited the case of Edmund Contoski, a Minnesota landowner who won a lawsuit against the USFWS in August 2006. Contoski’s lakefront land is prime real estate—for humans and eagles. Before the lawsuit, eagle protections prevented Contoski from carving up his property for development. But this has changed.

That’s part of the dilemma when it comes to carving out the eagle’s future. As Nye puts it, “I’m all for delisting; the numbers warrant it, provided that we secure the habitats these ‘numbers’ are now relying on. If not, given the pace of development and land alteration, what will our eagle population look like in 2040?”

The local perspective

Lori McKean, Director of the Eagle Institute in Barryville, NY, expressed similar concerns, based upon first-hand experience with local populations. “While there is cause to celebrate the remarkable recovery of the eagle, I am concerned that removing the species from the list will cause a false sense of security. I already see some of that happening; sometimes people will comment that there is less concern for protecting eagle habitat or practicing eagle etiquette when eagle watching because ‘there are so many of them around.’ People don’t realize that although that might be the case today, it won’t be in the future if we don’t protect habitat, provide a safe and continuous food supply and preserve critical roost, perch and nest areas,” said McKean.

“Disturbing eagles may not seem like it has a large impact, but eagles are very wary of human activity. Expending energy unnecessarily trying to get away from annoying or loud humans can have a detrimental effect on eagle survival,” said McKean. “It won’t take long to get us right back where we were 30 years ago if people don’t remain vigilant about protecting the eagle and practicing habitat conservation.”

Raptor rehabilitator William Streeter, Director of Delaware Valley Raptor Center in Milford, PA, pointed out that arguments in favor of the delisting include the following: Spending the limited funding available on species whose conservation needs have been met hurts those who are in greater danger of extinction. In addition, keeping recovered species on the list weakens the ESA and does not provide incentive to Congress to continuing appropriating funds for the Endangered Species Program.

Streeter added, “As a lover of raptors, I hate to see bald eagles losing their existing protections under the ESA. Habitat protection for the bald eagle benefits all wildlife, not just eagles. My gut tells me perhaps it is time for the delisting, but extend the mandatory five-year monitoring period to 10 years or greater. My heart tells me to afford them as much protection as possible forever.”

Two laws still protect eagles

The November 2006 eagle killing near Milford, PA indicates the need for continued awareness that eagles are still protected. The USFWS, the PAGC and the NPS are investigating the shooting. Anyone with information should contact the USFWS Office of Law Enforcement at 215/492-5850, the PAGC at 570/675-1143 or the NPS at 570/426-2457.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests or eggs. “Take” is defined as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. The act provides criminal penalties and can result in fines up to $200,000, imprisonment or both. A second violation of this act is a felony.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg. “Take” is defined as pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, possess or collect.

Copies of the BGEPA and the MBTA are available at permits.fws.gov/ltr/ltr.shtml.