Bald Eagle De-Listing
Patrick Mooney
English C77
October 5, 1999
Scientists and members of the public have intensely debated the wisdom of removing the bald eagle from the Endangered Species List for at least five years now. Another effort has been underway since July to list the national symbol of the United States as "threatened" rather than endangered. This effort is based, at least ostensibly, on the fact that bald eagle populations have reached numbers considered to be healthy and suitable for breeding ("Eagle de-listing" 1999). Nevertheless, some scientists object to the de-listing on the grounds that bald eagle habitats, currently protected because the species is listed as endangered, would no longer be protected under the Endangered Species Act if the eagle is removed from the list, although local and state laws would still provide protection of habitat in some areas and other federal laws (such as the 1940 Bald Eagle Protection Act) would still protect the eagles from hunting ("Eagle de-listing" 1999; "Bald Eagle" 1998). "My big concern is that eagle habitat is not adequately protected," said Jim Fraser, a wildlife biologist who has spent the last quarter century studying bald eagles ("Eagle de-listing" 1999).
Some other scientists worry about the de-listing for other reasons. Smolen and Colborn (1998), for instance, cite a 1991 gathering of scientists in various fields at the Wingspread Conference Center in Wisconsin to discuss the extent of the effect of man-made chemicals on wildlife and supplement the information from the Wingspread conference with the results of studies published in the meantime. They conclude that synthetic chemicals currently being released into the environment act as endocrine disruptors for a wide variety of animals, including bald eagles, much as DDT did during the middle of the century. Endocrine disruptors absorbed into eagle eggs can lead to decreased hatching success or cause developmental problems for the eagles inside, including thyroid disfunction, birth deformities (including bill deformities), decreased fertility, metabolic and behavioral abnormalities, ambiguity in sexual behavior or physical development, learning disabilities, reduced intelligence, and increased susceptibility to disease (Smolen and Colborn 1998).
Risebrough (1998) disagrees with Smolen and Colborn, stating that the observed effects noted above stem from the persistance of effects from DDT and its "environmental derivative," DDE. "The balance of the scientific evidence ... indicates that this is a remnant 'old' effect," he writes. "The use of the term 'endocrine disruption' in the absence of any definitive demonstration of the cause(s) of eggshell thinning and structural abnormalities would not appear to be justified" (Risebrough 1998). Risebrough (1998) cites, as evidence, the problems experienced by a population of bald eagles reintroduced to Santa Catalina island that "continue to suffer from severe effects of cantmination by DDE."
The dispute about the causes of the continued danger faced by the bald eagle, including the debate about the exact chemicals leading to problems experienced by the eagles in breeding, are very important -- but of only tangenital relevance in the context of the debate about whether the bald eagle should be de-listed. Of more importance is that a large and diverse group of scientists agree that the eagle is still highly vulnerable to man-made problems in its environment.
Key players other than biologists in the debate make up a diverse group. These key players include economic interests, including developers who would like to build on the Chesapeake Bay shoreline, a bald eagle habitat, and manufacturers of chemicals such as PCBs, furans, dioxins, brominated biphenyls, phthalates, and phenol ethoxylates, which scientists such as Smolen and Colborn claim to be disruptive of endocrine functions in the eagles ("Eagle de-listing" 1999; Smolen and Colborn 1997). The issues at stake for these groups, therefore, are issues of economic concern. Other players are spokespeople for the 1998 U.S. policy change that encourages de-listing a species as soon as it is thought to be able to survive, who are anxious to disprove claims from "critics of the policy [who] say no plant or animal has ever recovered because of the Endangered Species Act" and conservation groups who see the change in the bald eagle's status as proof of the ESA's effectiveness ("Bald eagle" 1998; Wong et al. 1999). The issues for these groups are issues of the perceived effectiveness of a law which they either have or have not supported over time. So, by extension, the issues involved for these groups are issues of credibility and prestige. Of course, the bald eagles themselves have the greatest stake in the decision, but are completely dependent on the outcome of a debate conducted on their behalf by humans.
Although there are debates about why bald eagles are still experiencing reproductive difficulties, and although the eagle has recovered enough to reach its original target levels for population, it seems that this bird may still be in danger of extinction. Changing its status to "threatened" may be premature.
References Cited
"Bald Eagle, gray wolf coming off Engangered Species List," World Wide Web. http://anne.abnormal.com/notes/acnanne5.html. 29 Septempber 1999.
"Eagle de-listing a mistake, officials say," World Wide Web. wysiwyg://76/http://cnn.com/27/eagle.delisting.cnn/index.html. 1 October 1999
Risebrough, R. W. Endocrine Disrupters and Bald Eagles: A Response. Engangered Species Update 15, n 3: 47-50.
Smolen, M. and Colborn, T. 1997. Endocrine Disruption: Hidden Threats to Wildlife. Endangered Species Update 14, n 9 & 10: 6-10.
Wong, K., et al. 1999. Bald eagles will soar on July 4. U.S. News & World Report 127, n 1: 12
Space for this page provided by
Get your own free home page.
