So once a species gets listed, it should be on the endangered list permanently, whether or not it’s actually endangered?
Look, I am not particularly development-friendly. But the endangered species list has a purpose, and that purpose is to protect engangered species, not to stop development. Yes, when a species is taken off the list, the government, the public, developers, and most everyone else perceives that that species in quesiton is not endangered anymore. Probably because it isn’t.
I don’t think anyone is going to be hunting the bald eagle back into extinction, or pumping DDT into their nests, and so on, so I am pretty sure the bald eagle will survive delisting.
I don’t think anyone is going to be hunting the bald eagle back into extinction, or pumping DDT into their nests, and so on, so I am pretty sure the bald eagle will survive delisting.
Did you read the article? The Endangered Species Act protects the environment on which the listed species depend; the Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act (or whatever it is called) protects the individual animals from being hunted or injured or otherwise harrassed. The latter law does nothing to protect the ecosystem upon which the birds depend. At the extreme, one could dam up every river in the country without running afoul of that law, thereby destroying any chance of survival of the bald eagle. Keeping it listed would prevent such action.
The ivory billed woodpecker didn’t become (presumably) extinct through hunting, but through loss of habitat. The same would occur to the bald eagle. If they don’t find a suitable nesting/hunting area, they don’t just suck it up and do the best they can: they abandon their nests, they don’t breed, and they die out.
Coincidentally, I happened to see a bald eagle here in NJ on Tuesday, one of either two or three nesting pairs in my area.
Did you read the article?
Yes. Did you read what I wrote, and what you quoted?
Or is it that you really think that we are going to dam up every river in the country and push the bald eagle into extinction? (I assume they’re still at least safe from DDT, right? So, lessee here . . . Two of the three factors that led to their precarious state have been remedied altogether. Huh.)
** The same would occur to the bald eagle.**
So it is, in fact, your position that the bald eagle needs to be kept on the endangered list permanently, because it isn’t capable of surviving otherwise. Is that right? I guess I’m not sure why you assume that the bald eagle is going to go the way of the ivory billed woodpecker, and not, say, the red tailed hawk.
Did you read the article?
Yes. Did you read what I wrote, and what you quoted?
Or is it that you really think that we are going to dam up every river in the country and push the bald eagle into extinction? (I assume they’re still at least safe from DDT, right? So, lessee here . . . Two of the three factors that led to their precarious state have been remedied altogether. Huh.)
The same would occur to the bald eagle.
So it is, in fact, your position that the bald eagle needs to be kept on the endangered list permanently, because it isn’t capable of surviving otherwise. Is that right? I guess I’m not sure why you assume that the bald eagle is going to go the way of the ivory billed woodpecker, and not, say, the red tailed hawk.
My position is that the bald eagle should be given every protection it needs to thrive, assuming that we as a nation deem that important. It just so happens that the ESA gives that protection, and the bald/golden eagle act does not. Find another way of protecting the bald eagle habitat, and delist it.
The bald eagle, like the ivory billed woodpecker and unlike the red-tailed hawk, is highly dependent on specific habitats. The more specialized an animal, the more sensitive it is to disruptions in habitat. Bald eagles need certain kinds of water, certain types of trees, certain types of landscape, etc. Without that specific combination of environment, they don’t nest, they don’t breed, and they don’t survive. Red-tailed hawks are far less specific about their habitat, and thus can survive more easily. There’s one I see on a weekly basis on a particular lamppost on Rt. 18 near my house; he seems quite unperturbed by the flow of traffic. You’d never see a bald eagle anywhere near such commotion.
My position is that the bald eagle should be given every protection it needs to thrive
Your’s, mine, and everyone else’s position, too. The question is, does it need to be on the endangered species list permanently to thrive, or is it capable of making a go of it?
The bald eagle, like the ivory billed woodpecker and unlike the red-tailed hawk, is highly dependent on specific habitats.
I rather think that if it is more dependent on specific habitats than the red tailed hawk, it’s not as dependent on a specific habitat as the ivory billed woodpecker. You were just saying something about a couple of nesting pairs in your neck of the woods, if I recall.
The eagle is going to be fine. It’s a success story, people.
I rather think that if it is more dependent on specific habitats than the red tailed hawk, it’s not as dependent on a specific habitat as the ivory billed woodpecker. You were just saying something about a couple of nesting pairs in your neck of the woods, if I recall.
The eagle is going to be fine. It’s a success story, people.
You miss the entire point of this thread.
The two nesting pairs are on reservoirs, where development is strictly controlled. And it’s not “if it is more dependent”: it is.
**You miss the entire point of this thread. **
Maybe. If the point of this thread is that eagles can’t survive without being on the endangered species list, though, it isn’t that I’m missing the point, it’s that I just disagree with it. If that’s not the point, spell it out for me.
**it’s not “if it is more dependent”: it is. **
Yes, and *it is *less dependent on specific habitat than the ivory billed woodpecker, too. Which is why the bald eagle is going to continue to exist, and the woodpecker is not, or maybe has not.
You are having a tough comprehension day. From the very first post (emphasis added to help you):
Preservation of habitat and conservation efforts are not supposed to be defined by a window function, they’re supposed to be everlasting efforts.
So, any animal that is not as specialized as the ivory billed woodpecker is gonna be okay? Gotcha.
I’m not sure how individuals should be responsible for a species. I’m guessing the individual with the land in Minnesota owned the land prior to he eagle being placed on the endangered species list and or the eagle “Moved in” while on the list. Seems to me that if we as a society value the species that the individual shouldn’t be forced to carry the burden. IOW why not buy the guy out?
OTOH how many cases are like there like this and how much of an impact will it have if this one environment is tapered with? I have no idea but I suspect if these eagles are on private “develop able” land across the nation it would be a problem, but if this is an isolated case maybe not.
~Matt
I didn’t say that every animal not as specialized as that woodpecker is going to be OK, I said, basically, that you’re comparison between it and the bald eagle is specious. And I said that the bald eagle, specifically, is going to be OK.
Your position, effectively, is that the bald eagle remains endangered and should always and forever remain on the official list, because by taking it off, we allow development that will inevitably threaten its existence. I disagree. Time will tell, I suppose. How much time do you think it will take before the bald eagle is once again in danger of extinction?
I didn’t say that every animal not as specialized as that woodpecker is going to be OK, I said, basically, that you’re comparison between it and the bald eagle is specious. And I said that the bald eagle, specifically, is going to be OK.
Your position, effectively, is that the bald eagle remains endangered and should always and forever remain on the official list, because by taking it off, we allow development that will inevitably threaten its existence. I disagree. Time will tell, I suppose. How much time do you think it will take before the bald eagle is once again in danger of extinction?
You are utterly failing to understand even the most clearly-written post. I explicitly denied your wrong summation of my position.
Good grief, but aren’t we having a hard time communicating today.
Let me know where I’ve gone wrong: The benefit to the bald eagle of being on the endangered species list is habitat protection. Removing the eagle from the list removes its habitat from protection which it has enjoyed up to now. It needs that habitat to be protected to the degree provided by the endangered species list.
So far, so good?
Indeed…the crux of the problem, nicely summarized. Its easy for us to say that, dammit, we should have Bald Eagles, as long as we don’t have to foot the bill for it. If we are going to deny someone the use of their land, that they paid for, then we should buy them out. I think Bald Eagles are worth that, and I think they deserve habitat protection, but we shouldn’t do it on the backs of folks who otherwise would have the free and clear use of their land.
Spot