[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Peregrine de-listing: victory of politics over science



The Federal Register has not yet published the final rule delisting the 
peregrine falcon, so we do not yet know what the FWS will claim. However, if 
the final rule takes the same tack as the proposed rule did, the delisting 
will be yet another example of Babbitt/Clark playing politics with the ESA. 
Here, rather than refusing to list a species that should be listed (recent 
examples include the Canada Lynx, Atlantic salmon, Alabama sturgeon), the FWS 
is rushing to prematurely delist a species so that a "victory" can be 
claimed. This approach will not silence the critics of the ESA (who will 
continue to object to protecting species and their habitats no matter how 
many species are delisted), but it will place the peregrine at higher risk. 

Contrary to the claim that the recovery criteria have been met, there appears 
to have been biological gerrymandering to try to make it appear that the 
peregrine has recovered when in fact it has not. The are many questions about 
the criteria -- take egg-shell thinning, for example. It was originally 
mentioned as being at 10% or less eggshell thinning from pre-DDT thickness; 
now, 17% thinning is taken to be the point at which interference with 
reproduction occurs. Even the 10% level accepts a substantial amount of 
contamination; the future results of this are unknown. Likewise, peregrine 
numbers have been counted over very large geographic areas, which lumps into 
one basket -- and masks -- the areas where peregrines are doing poorly. In 
addition, these numbers have been boosted through captive breeding programs; 
the long term survival and reproductive capabilities of these birds is 
unknown. 

As to the claim that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will adequately protect 
the peregrine, that claim is simply false. The regulations that implement the 
MBTA and the ESA define the term "take" very differently; the courts have 
concurred with that interpretation.  The MBTA may prohibit directly killing a 
peregrine; it certainly does not protect the peregrine's habitat (as the 
regulatory definition of "harm" under the ESA does). 

The Biodiversity Legal Foundation submitted extensive critical comments on 
the proposed delisting rule. I would encourage any scientists, agency 
personnel or others who are concerned about the Peregrine delisting to 
contact me directly at my e-mail address (rather than through the list serve) 
so that we can discuss the issue further. 

Sidney Maddock
Environmental Analyst
Biodiversity Legal Foundation
P.O. Box 1359
Buxton, NC 27920
(252) 995-3312