The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, deliberately and appropriately, timed one its most inspiring announcements to coincide with the 4th of July. The American bald eagle, majestic symbol of the United States since 1782, is no longer an endangered species.
The eagle has been officially reclassified as threatened, an important distinction that signals that, while the bird has not yet made it to full recovery, it no longer is on the brink of extinction. Though bald eagles will remain protected, restrictions may be less stringent, so long as they continue to recover and no one directly harms them or their nesting sites.
Once, when the eagle was adopted as the national symbol, there were an estimated 250,000 gliding above the continent. But decades of habitat destruction, hunting and especially the careless use of dangerous pesticides took a calamitous toll.
By 1963, their decline had been so great that there were only 413 nesting pairs in the lower 48 states. Today there are more than 4,000, and they have rebounded satisfactorily in all but a few southwestern states, where they remain endangered.
This recovery is being hailed as one of the great success stories of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, and rightly so, for it illustrates the way the law is supposed to work-galvanizing public sentiment and perfecting protection and recovery techniques that gave the eagles a chance.
And now, though some environmental groups would have preferred keeping the bird classified as endangered, the prevailing view is that of the National Wildlife Federation: When recovery goals, based on sound science, are met, it is time to reclassify. Or, as in the case of the California gray whale-another recent success story-to de-list the species entirely.
The law alone did not save the eagle. Another pivotal moment was the 1972 banning of DDT, the pernicious pesticide that worked its way into the eagle’s food chain and nearly destroyed the birds’ ability to hatch healthy eggs and reproduce. That helped halt the decline; the act-particularly in the preservation of habitat-gave them room to prosper.
Today, of course, the act is under attack as never before because of sometimes too-zealous enforcement at the expense of property rights, and the temptation to use it mischievously to stop unpopular development. It is under review in Congress, but nothing is likely to happen on the issue until next year.
In the meantime, the Clinton administration is easing into a wiser, more flexible approach that will better respect property, involve citizens more in recovery plans, increase scientific review and rely more on protecting habitats than individual species.
But those are considerations for another day. Today, after another celebration of our independence, it is sufficient to celebrate the return of its symbol.
