|
Bald eagle delisting muddled by 'disturb' definition |
|
|
|
|
The future of removing protections for the bald eagle under the Endangered Species Act is growing more complicated as the Fish and Wildlife Service attempts to give a clear definition of what it means to disturb the bird.
The eagle's population has rebounded from around 400 breeding pairs in the lower 48 states in the early 1960s to more than 7,000 breeding pairs today. A federal judge gave FWS until June 29 to decide whether to move forward with its proposal to delist the bird.
The problem for FWS officials has been in developing protections for the eagle once it is no longer under the wing of ESA, and particularly what it means to "disturb" a bird.
"It turned out to be quite a complicated issue," said Paul Schmidt, FWS assistant director for migratory birds.
The eagle is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which prohibits taking or disturbing eagles. FWS proposed regulations last December to define "disturb" as actions that would cause injury or death to an eagle (Greenwire, Feb. 8).
But environmentalists said that disturb should carry much broader implications, including actions that scare or harass eagles.
Michael Bean of Environmental Defense said that using the term disturb to describe action against an eagle should carry the same weight as if someone, for example, were to disturb their neighbors with a loud party. "You can be pretty sure that you've disturbed them," Bean said, "even if they're not dead or bleeding or forced to abandon their home" (David A. Fahrenthold, Washington Post, Feb. 26).
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 25 October 2007 )
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
