Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 01:38:48 -0800 (PST) From: Alexander Volokh Subject: CEI LIST - FOOLS FOR FALCONS To: Recipients of the CEI List FOOLS FOR FALCONS by Brian Seasholes, CEI environmental research associate appeared in *CEI UpDate*, 10/94 On the 5th of October the arctic peregrine falcon was removed from the list of endangered and threatened species. "Here is real evidence that the Endangered Species Act does what it was intended to do -- bring back species from the brink of extinction," claimed Mollie Beattie, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). She couldn't be more wrong about the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and its role in "saving" the arctic peregrine falcon. Try as the FWS might, neither it nor the ESA can claim any credit for the event. Most people blame the pesticide DDT for the falcon's decline. The falcon's decline was "almost entirely related to DDT," according to Jay Shepherd of the FWS. Yet DDT was banned in 1972, one year prior to the passage of the ESA. The banning of DDT cannot be attributed to the ESA, nor can the ban's beneficial impact on the arctic peregrine. In fact, the falcon's recovery "really did not have to do with the Endangered Species Act," according to Bill Burnham, President of the Peregrine Fund, the primary conservation organization concerned with peregrine falcons. Almost no conservation and recovery effort by the FWS has been undertaken on behalf of the arctic peregrine, beyond conducting various monitoring studies and restricting the capture of falcons by falconers -- a relatively minor threat. Other than the ban on DDT, "it was the remoteness" of its nesting habitat in northern Alaska as well as Canada and Greenland that was a significant factor in the arctic peregrine's rebound, according to Shepherd. Some dispute that the falcon should ever have been placed on the endangered species list at all. Listing the arctic peregrine was "a fraud and a scam" and the "whole thing was political," asserts ornithologist Frank Beebe, the first person in North America to hatch peregrine falcons successfully. Mr. Beebe was vigorously opposed to the arctic peregrine's listing under the ESA. According to him, the FWS and falcon advocates sought to create a money tree which they could then shake in order to fund unnecessary research. And shake it they did. Biologists eagerly applied for and received funding to observe the birds through binoculars and spotting scopes. Being associated with such a charismatic species was great publicity, but the public had to be convinced that without the ESA the arctic peregrine may well have become extinct. In listing and delisting the arctic peregrine the FWS has capitalized on the popularity of the well-known American peregrine falcon which lives predominantly in the lower 48 states and sometimes nests on buildings. Many people do not realize that the arctic and American peregrine falcons are distinct subspecies and listed separately under the ESA. "It confuses the public too much to say American peregrine or arctic peregrine falcon," said Jay Shepherd. So the FWS has referred to these two sub-species as generic peregrine falcons in its ongoing effort to further their P.R. efforts for the ESA. Actions taken on behalf of either sub-species have been sold as peregrine protection efforts in general. This has been "a pretty good example of manipulation of public opinion," according to Frank Beebe. Perhaps the FWS should stop manipulating public opinion and simply admit that the ESA had almost nothing to do with most of the 24 species that have been delisted. Seven of these species were delisted because they became extinct, and of these three were probably extinct before they were listed. Eight species were delisted because the "original data [was] in error," meaning they never should have been listed in the first place. Another species' listing was invalidated by court order. Despite this dubious track record, the FWS still likes to tout eight species, including the arctic peregrine, as "recovered." They are wrong here too. - Palau owl, Palau fantail flycatcher and Palau dove. These three birds live on the recently independent Trust Territory of Palau, an archipelago in the South Pacific. Extremely heavy fighting in World War II devastated some of these islands along with their flora and fauna. In 1970 these three birds were listed based on censuses taken in 1946. The islands' vegetation grew back over the next 40 years, and the birds gradually returned without the help of the ESA. - Eastern brown pelican. Like the peregrine, the brown pelican is one of the "DDT birds." The banning of DDT in 1972 predates the passage of the ESA by one year, so the ESA cannot claim responsibility for this. - American alligator. In 1973 approximately 734,000 alligators (which is a far cry from endangered) lived in their thirteen-state range. Excluding Florida, for which no population trend data was available, alligators were increasing in 168 counties, stable in 152 counties, and decreasing in just 25 counties throughout their range. Thus, the American alligator never should have been listed. - Rydberg milk-vetch. When this plant was listed in 1978, only two populations totaling 2,500 plants were known. When it was delisted in 1989, 13 populations totaling over 300,000 plants were known because biologists simply bothered to go out and find more of them. This is another case of "original data in error." - Gray whale. In the late 1800s the market for whale oil -- the most demanded whale product -- declined drastically as John D. Rockefeller pioneered the use of petroleum substitutes. With the subsequent decline in whaling, the gray whale's numbers steadily increased for 100 years until it was delisted in 1994. By falsely declaring all of these species "recovered" due to the ESA, the FWS is engaged in just another effort to manipulate public opinion in a desperate attempt to convince people that the Endangered Species Act does its job -- it doesn't. The announcement this past Fourth of July by the FWS that the bald eagle may be downlisted from endangered to the less imperiled status of threatened is a similar manipulation of public opinion. Like the arctic peregrine falcon, "nearly everyone agrees that the key to the eagle's resurgence -- even more so than the Endangered Species Act -- was the banning of the use of the insecticide DDT in this country in 1972," according to *Audubon* magazine. Not according to the FWS propaganda machine. "The eagle's recovery is a tribute to the success of the Endangered Species Act and other conservation laws," as well as the work of dedicated people, says FWS director Beattie. Ms. Beattie is partially correct, the 1940 Eagle Protection Act and its 1962 amendments afforded protection specifically for the eagle. These laws may have helped. However, as ornithologist Eirik Blom points out, the ESA was largely superfluous to the eagle's rebound because the public and Congress would have done whatever necessary to ensure that our National Symbol did not go extinct. The announcement of the bald eagle "success" to coincide with the celebration of this nation's founding was especially galling because the bald eagle has been used as a pretext for infringing upon the rights of property owners. Dayton Hyde, a rancher in Oregon, converted 25 percent of his ranch to wildlife habitat. His efforts were successful, and Hyde soon attracted a pair of bald eagles. Upon learning of this the U.S. Forest Service invoked the ESA and closed a road on Mr. Hyde's land because, they claimed, vehicles or humans could disturb the eagles. The only problem was that Mr. Hyde required this road in order to repair his property fence. By creating habitat that had not previously existed and attracting eagles that had not previously nested there, Dayton Hyde lost the use of his land. He learned a hard lesson: *don't* engage in any type of land management that might provide a home for an endangered species because you may lose your right to use your land. This fear recently ignited a fire-storm of protest in central Texas over the proposed designation of critical habitat for the endangered golden-cheeked warbler. The proposed designation, encompassing 800,000 acres in 33 counties, would have added more onerous land-use restrictions than currently exist. A grass-roots property rights movement called Take Back Texas, fearing that property owners would lose the right to use their land, organized a protest. They pressured a reluctant Governor Ann Richards to oppose the designation. With her political stock plummeting, she wrote Interior secretary Bruce Babbitt to request that he not designate critical habitat. In a blatantly political, Babbitt suspended the designation to help Richards' faltering re-election campaign. Once again the government is playing politics with the Endangered Species Act in order to manipulate public opinion. Yet they cannot hide the truth: the ESA does not work for species or for people. _______ __________ ___________ / | / | | | |__________ | | | | \ | | \ _______ |__________ ___________ COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW #1250 Washington, DC 20036 202-331-1010, fax 202-331-0640 cei@digex.com Permission to copy granted as long as these lines are left intact. To subscribe to the cei list, or to get the "1995 Federal Disaster Calendar," send a message to volokh@netcom.com. "The Virtual Hand: CEI's free-market guide to the information superhighway" is available for $5. CEI's monthly newsletter, "CEI UpDate," is free to contributors of $25.