 |
Sadly I find myself continually surprised by some of the changes that get pushed through Washington regarding land and wildlife protection. The lastest surprise is an effort by the Bush administration to remove the American Bald Eagle from the Endangered Species Act. As with other environmental issues the Bush administration is ignoring sound scientific evidence coming from with in and outside the government.
I learned about this issue while listening to an NPR report on my way to work. Take a listen/read here
Looking into this a little further I could only find the Washington Post reporting on this back in December.
For those also unaware of the proposed changes to the American Bald Eagle protected status… although the American Bald Eagle population is doing well it is not completely out of harms way. The removal of protection provided by the Endangered Species Act opens the door for a variety of threats to the emerging population of eagles.
Take Action! Make Sure Bald Eagles Get The Protection They Deserve
As quoted from the NPR Report:
“If they go forward with their proposal, I think the eagle is essentially unprotected from harm caused by development,” said John Kostyak, a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation.
He said when the eagle comes off the list it will be protected by other federal laws — primarily the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. He says how much protection the eagle gets could come down to how the Bush administration defines just one word, “disturb.” The law says it’s illegal to disturb an eagle. But what does that mean?
A few things you should know about that article:
-NPR’s original report said that the memo was signed by Dale Hall, the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The .PDF it linked to, however, did not have Hall’s signature. (It later changed the story to saying the memo was “by” him.) Government officials often have memos prepared for them by lackeys that they do not sign. It’s only official with a signature; there is no signature on that memo.
-NPR never spoke with a government official about the report; they should have had a chance to respond. (It only added the text that the DOI would not have an immediate comment about the story several hours after it was originally published.)
-In the fourth paragraph “environmentalists” is used, yet only one such person is quoted.
-The piece also refers to John Kostyak as an “environmentalist;” the word “lobbyist” is just as suitable.
“Steve”…
I appreciate your response, but your credibility is weak considering:
1. You’ve not provided you real name
2. You’ve not provided a real e-mail address
3. You’ve responded with the exact same answer to another blog with similar concern.
http://nwf.blogs.com/arctic_promise/2007/02/administration_.html
4. Repeat 1 & 2 as you list yourself on #3 as Lenny Dkystra (Lenny@nymets.com) and clearly you’re no dyslexic ball player.
Regardless of your points you’ve not addressed the general concern. Vague legislation provides no benefit to either side of this debate. Clearly it is of concern for environmentalists who want to maintain gains made over the past few decades enabling the eagle population to rebound, leaves open the door for unnecessary litigation slowing the agenda of developers and leaves our countries national bird susceptible to irreparable harm. Well thought out policy changes are owed not just to the eagles but to tax payers. Meeting a deadline for the sake of meeting a deadline serves no benefit to anyone.
Pingback: JMG-Galleries - From the archives: American Bald Eagle
I agree that if the ban is lifted,the bald eagle will not be protected and therefore will be hunted to extinction again.I beleive that our national bird should always be protected.