Post by blackcrowheart on Oct 11, 2006 17:43:18 GMT -5
Eagle experts possibly ignored Report said birds are unique, should be
protected
Kate Nolan
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 7, 2006 12:00 AM
www.azcentral.com/news//articles/1007eagles1007.html
<http://www.azcentral.com/news//articles/1007eagles1007.html>
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may have ignored the conclusions of
top eagle scientists in a recent decision denying special protections
for Arizona's bald eagles.
In response to a petition filed by conservation groups, the agency ruled
Aug. 29 that the state's bald eagles do not constitute a distinct
population and won't be entitled to their own endangered species
protection if America's bald eagles are removed from the endangered
species list, as proposed by Fish and Wildlife.
The decision came in response to a petition filed in October 2004 by the
Center for Biological Diversity, Maricopa Audubon Society and Arizona
Audubon Council. The federal agency said the scientific data did not
support the request. [http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif]
[http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif]
Conservationists say that Fish and Wildlife overlooked an 11-page letter
that summarizes the scientific conclusions of a panel of seven top
experts on eagles who believe Arizona's eagle population would be
jeopardized without endangered-species protection.
Fish and Wildlife had asked the Raptor Research Foundation, based in
Olympia, Wash., for comment on the proposal to delist the bald eagle.
The foundation's 900 members are predominantly scientists who study and
manage birds of prey. Signed by the group's president, the letter
represents the conclusions of scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey
and several universities and wildlife research agencies. The scientists
voiced concerns about habitat protection and monitoring of eagles
nationally after they are delisted but expressed considerable alarm for
Arizona's birds.
"We continue to be concerned about the viability of the Southwest
population of bald eagles based on the low number of breeding pairs,
relatively low productivity, relatively high adult mortality and threats
of habitat alteration and human disturbance," says the statement, which
cites scientific documents.
It also noted a rapidly growing human population that puts increasing
pressure on water supply and maintaining the river ecologies required by
the birds.
There are fewer than 50 breeding pairs in Arizona. Some biologists say
animal populations reduced to fewer than 500 breeding pairs risk
extinction.
Officials from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, which manages the
state's eagle program, agreed that the numbers are small but said the
population is substantial compared with the handful that existed 30
years ago.
Game and Fish is circulating a conservation plan that would obligate the
21 agencies, businesses and tribes involved in the eagle program to
continue their support after delisting. Half of the members have signed,
and most are expected to sign, according to James Driscoll, eagle
program field manager.
Fish and Game supports delisting Arizona eagles.
The petitioners discovered the Raptor Research letter after a
sympathetic U.S. Fish and Game staff member this week brought it to
their attention, according to Kier�n Suckling, policy director for
the Center for Biological Diversity.
"The panel reviewed the entire eagle population across the country, but
they homed in on serious problems in the Southwest," Suckling said.
He pointed to another document that also appears to have been
overlooked: a June letter to Fish and Wildlife from Robert Magill,
former head of Arizona's eagle conservation program. Magill proposed
extending endangered-species protection to Arizona eagles. Magill was
unavailable for comment.
Game and Fish documents referring to the decision on the Arizona eagle
petition do not include either letter.
A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman for the Southwest region office in
Albuquerque said she couldn't confirm whether the letters were used to
evaluate the petition.
"I'd have to assume the foundation's letter wasn't considered, looking
at the dates," said Elizabeth Slown, suggesting that bureaucratic
inertia could have kept the Aug. 11 foundation letter from becoming part
of the record before the determination was made a few weeks later.
protected
Kate Nolan
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 7, 2006 12:00 AM
www.azcentral.com/news//articles/1007eagles1007.html
<http://www.azcentral.com/news//articles/1007eagles1007.html>
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may have ignored the conclusions of
top eagle scientists in a recent decision denying special protections
for Arizona's bald eagles.
In response to a petition filed by conservation groups, the agency ruled
Aug. 29 that the state's bald eagles do not constitute a distinct
population and won't be entitled to their own endangered species
protection if America's bald eagles are removed from the endangered
species list, as proposed by Fish and Wildlife.
The decision came in response to a petition filed in October 2004 by the
Center for Biological Diversity, Maricopa Audubon Society and Arizona
Audubon Council. The federal agency said the scientific data did not
support the request. [http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif]
[http://www.azcentral.com/imgs/clear.gif]
Conservationists say that Fish and Wildlife overlooked an 11-page letter
that summarizes the scientific conclusions of a panel of seven top
experts on eagles who believe Arizona's eagle population would be
jeopardized without endangered-species protection.
Fish and Wildlife had asked the Raptor Research Foundation, based in
Olympia, Wash., for comment on the proposal to delist the bald eagle.
The foundation's 900 members are predominantly scientists who study and
manage birds of prey. Signed by the group's president, the letter
represents the conclusions of scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey
and several universities and wildlife research agencies. The scientists
voiced concerns about habitat protection and monitoring of eagles
nationally after they are delisted but expressed considerable alarm for
Arizona's birds.
"We continue to be concerned about the viability of the Southwest
population of bald eagles based on the low number of breeding pairs,
relatively low productivity, relatively high adult mortality and threats
of habitat alteration and human disturbance," says the statement, which
cites scientific documents.
It also noted a rapidly growing human population that puts increasing
pressure on water supply and maintaining the river ecologies required by
the birds.
There are fewer than 50 breeding pairs in Arizona. Some biologists say
animal populations reduced to fewer than 500 breeding pairs risk
extinction.
Officials from the Arizona Game and Fish Department, which manages the
state's eagle program, agreed that the numbers are small but said the
population is substantial compared with the handful that existed 30
years ago.
Game and Fish is circulating a conservation plan that would obligate the
21 agencies, businesses and tribes involved in the eagle program to
continue their support after delisting. Half of the members have signed,
and most are expected to sign, according to James Driscoll, eagle
program field manager.
Fish and Game supports delisting Arizona eagles.
The petitioners discovered the Raptor Research letter after a
sympathetic U.S. Fish and Game staff member this week brought it to
their attention, according to Kier�n Suckling, policy director for
the Center for Biological Diversity.
"The panel reviewed the entire eagle population across the country, but
they homed in on serious problems in the Southwest," Suckling said.
He pointed to another document that also appears to have been
overlooked: a June letter to Fish and Wildlife from Robert Magill,
former head of Arizona's eagle conservation program. Magill proposed
extending endangered-species protection to Arizona eagles. Magill was
unavailable for comment.
Game and Fish documents referring to the decision on the Arizona eagle
petition do not include either letter.
A Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman for the Southwest region office in
Albuquerque said she couldn't confirm whether the letters were used to
evaluate the petition.
"I'd have to assume the foundation's letter wasn't considered, looking
at the dates," said Elizabeth Slown, suggesting that bureaucratic
inertia could have kept the Aug. 11 foundation letter from becoming part
of the record before the determination was made a few weeks later.