This is proof of the idea that liberals don't really want results from their legislated policies -- they want power. The real point of the Endangered Species Act wasn't protection of endangered species, it was to have the legal capability to limit development. That bald eagles are thriving is actually a tragedy to activists, because the birds can no longer be used as a weapon.

As a long-time raptor watcher (for you people on the left, a "raptor" is the "hawk" family of birds, which not only includes bald eagles but also an extremely vicious little hunting bird known as the "chickenhawk", thus slaying another liberal myth at the same time), here are a few observations.

1. If the Bald Eagle had been taken off the Endangered Species list while a (D) was President, the media would be all aglow.

2. Some recent studies have questioned whether or not DDT was the real culprit in the declining population of Bald Eagles (and also Peregrine Falcons, which are a relative) in the first place. It could very well in fact be junk science "data" manufactured to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, a la global warming and political polling. The main culprit, of course, was a lady named Carson, who ignored certain scientific data to absolutely conclude that DDT was bad in her 1961 book "Silent Spring".

Recently there have been calls to bring DDT back to fight malaria.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

http://info-pollution.com/moreddt.htm

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=209

3. Many "private land owners" in my part of the country (New England) have been putting large acreage portions of their undeveloped properties into "conservation easements", which actually increase habitats for Bald Eagles. They do so to (surprise) pay less in property tax. Someone I know just purchased a piece of real estate with a couple of thousand of feet of frontage on a medium-sized pond-and the majority of the shoreline is in such an easement. And a client of mine owns about 100 acres on another nearby pond with over 2,000 feet of pond frontage. He has it in the deed that it can NEVER be developed.

So this myth that "private land ownership" will possibly endanger the future of Bald Eagles is PhD (piled high and deep). It also smells of Marx-and I don't mean Groucho. You bet your life.

4. Check out the website for the expert quoted in the story. He prominently features how much grant money he's gotten before even listing his academic accomplishments. Darn those capitalists!

http://ccb.wm.edu/about/about_watts.htm

PS, the Bald Eagle isn't just a "coastal" bird, they also live on inland rivers and ponds and lakes. Most migrate to the coast during the winter however. And, as noted, they do live in cities, as the tall buildings remind them of cliffs, and they love the thermal updrafts generated by all that steel and concrete to soar around on. And they also have a steady supply of food (pigeons).

Too bad that in real life, both bald eagles and ospreys don't seem to mind living relatively-close to humans. Especially once they've established a nest and successfully fledged young, they'll come back even if substantial development has happened in the intervening months.
JMR

This could be bad news for the bald eagle.

It could go the way of the 'white Christian male' in the American workforce, now a minority but never acknowledged as such.

Please lobby for affirmative action for the poor pitiful 'white Christian male', who couldn't possibly take responsibility for himself.

D

I don't support our liberals or their mission.