Is Developing Bald Eagle Habitat Tantamount to Flag Burning?

[mactastic]

So I ran across this article (http://thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070627/NEWS06/706270337/1050)that talks about the upcoming de-listing of the Bald Eagle, and thinking about the ensuing rush to develop in areas previously off-limits reminded me of the flag burning debate.

Many here have argued vigorously that desecrating a symbol of America is tantamount to desecrating America itself, and the honor of all those who have fought and died to defend this country.

So I'm wondering how those who are against flag burning feel about developing in the habitat of what is arguably the second most recognizable symbol of America behind the flag itself. Development will most assuredly reduce the population of this mighty symbol of America, which would seem to be pissing on all those who have defended America, based on the logic of the anti-flag-burning arguments.

I'm curious to see what logical leaps will be made to justify the desecration of one American symbol, while simultaneously saying it's not OK to desecrate a different symbol of America.

Argue away...

[zimv20]

how ironic is it that moving a species off the endangered list actually does it more harm?

[Queso]

how ironic is it that moving a species off the endangered list actually does it more harm?
Wonderful creatures aren't they?

Humans I mean :rolleyes:

[Desertrat]

The article gives no specifics about "development". It doesn't say if the Lake is a feeding area or a nesting-habitat area.

All wildlife has what might be called a "comfort zone". For whitetail deer, for example, if chain saws and barking dogs are more than a couple of hundred yards away, the deer aren't particularly bothered, and will continue to feed. Jets on afterburner at or above 2,000 feet of altitude don't affect them, either. (The jets bothered me more than they bothered the group of deer that I was watching.)

As near as I can tell from a few interactions with golden eagles, if you stay some hundred or two hundred yards away, they're unconcerned about your presence. Driving to within twenty or thirty yards, they'll fly away. If they're feeding on carrion, they'll circle back as you drive on past.

I can see where lake-frontage residential development wouldn't bother the eagles if the houses are set well away from the lake, and particularly if they're at least partially screened by trees and shrubbery. AS long as the residents aren't out yelling and screaming, the eagles wouldn't be bothered by the houses as houses. This sort of setback can be part of the permits that are required before any development could be done.

Best, though, from an aesthetic standpoint, would be to buy the land and don't do any development.

'Rat

[srf4real]

All the bald eagles better move out of Florida - they're flat clearing everything that isn't water and paving it all down here. Our county (Brevard) voters passed a referendum last election to buy up environmentally sensitive lands before it's all gone with an extra half percent sales tax... there is just too much money in development to expect many people to just sit on their land privately. Our politicians are snug in developer's pockets. And who wants to keep their horses and cattle on a 200 miles square ranch that just got 15,000 units developed only a quarter mile away. The ranchers are selling for development as well. If they could, developers around here would build on the frikin' wetlands.:(

And the really crummy part - they move on to some other gold mine leaving us with the congested roads, under funded needs for schools and essential services... without protection we Florida natives have become an endangered species!:p

rant over. Eagles are cool.:cool:

[MACDRIVE]

Dear mactastic,

I was confused by the thread title. I thought you meant the development of a habitat for bald eagles, but you meant to say - development in bald eagle habitats.

Now I'll give you my opinion:

I think bald eagles should take precedence over any kind of land development.

I think grizzly bears should take precedence over any kind of land development.

I think wolves should take precedence over any kind of land development.

Get the idea? ;)

[killr_b]

I can't see how the two things are related.

Eagles need a place to live, a flag is a piece of cloth.

Eagles are a moderately rare bird and need more consideration of protection than say, rabbits.

Burning a flag is a symbolic act of political protest protected by the first amendment.

While I don't want to see bald eagles have their land developed over, I also don't think cramming people into major cities is a proper solution either. Maybe we should work on diversifying the economy to the central part of the country so development demands will be raised there instead.
When I say we should diversify the economy to the mid section, what I mean is, we should move there, and then there will be less demand for the areas we want to see stay wild.

Someone wants to burn a flag, well, I'll at least listen to what they have to say. Then make a decision based on their claim of grievance, not on their method of expressing discontent. Basic principle of the U.S.

[MACDRIVE]

While I don't want to see bald eagles have their land developed over, I also don't think cramming people into major cities is a proper solution either.

I disagree - I say stack'm pack'm and rack'm. There is an insurmountable difference between a bald eagle and a human being. We humans are extremely flawed and corrupt; we don't deserve 1/millionth the land that the bald eagles deserve.

[killr_b]

I disagree - I say stack'm pack'm and rack'm. There is an insurmountable difference between a bald eagle and a human being. We humans are extremely flawed and corrupt; we don't deserve 1/millionth the land that the bald eagles deserve.

Read closer. We don't have to be "stacked packed and racked" as you say. There is plenty of usable land away from cities and bald eagles. Unless some people will feel the need to save the prairie dogs… :rolleyes:

[MACDRIVE]

Read closer. We don't have to be "stacked packed and racked" as you say. There is plenty of usable land away from cities and bald eagles. Unless some people will feel the need to save the prairie dogs… :rolleyes:

It's just that I'm always hearing news reports about grizzly bears "encroaching" on the backyards of people's homes.

The bears were there first!!! The people that bulldoze down the natural habitat and build houses there, can go to hell for all I care!

I don't mean any offence to you killr_b. . . it's just that mactastic has opened up a can of worms on me. I feel very strongly about animals; and if I come off as overly emotional about this subject - I'm sorry. :o

[OnceUGoMac]

All the bald eagles better move out of Florida - they're flat clearing everything that isn't water and paving it all down here. Our county (Brevard) voters passed a referendum last election to buy up environmentally sensitive lands before it's all gone with an extra half percent sales tax... there is just too much money in development to expect many people to just sit on their land privately. Our politicians are snug in developer's pockets. And who wants to keep their horses and cattle on a 200 miles square ranch that just got 15,000 units developed only a quarter mile away. The ranchers are selling for development as well. If they could, developers around here would build on the frikin' wetlands.:(

And the really crummy part - they move on to some other gold mine leaving us with the congested roads, under funded needs for schools and essential services... without protection we Florida natives have become an endangered species!:p


rant over. Eagles are cool.:cool:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a shortage of immigration to FL? Aren't they planning on eliminating sales tax to encourage immigration? At the same time, why are they still building all these condos when no one is moving in? I heard they have so many new condos built, it woiuld take three years to fill them up. This was all conveyed to me by a few of my Floridian friends, so I can't substantiate it. Are they correct?

[solvs]

The hypocrisy is there, but the people who should get it aren't going to. I'm sure someone will be in here in no time talking about how the 2 have nothing to do with each other. Then, instead of backing up the argument, they'll just issue a personal attack. Maybe even against Clinton.

I guess there's not enough money in killing flags, whereas paving over some eagles is highly profitable.

[obeygiant]

If you were to develop bald eagle breeding grounds because you were protesting against the government then there might be a connection.

Just like if someone needed to burn the american flag for heat, that wouldn't fall under "flag burning" proper.

[srf4real]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a shortage of immigration to FL? Aren't they planning on eliminating sales tax to encourage immigration? At the same time, why are they still building all these condos when no one is moving in? I heard they have so many new condos built, it woiuld take three years to fill them up. This was all conveyed to me by a few of my Floridian friends, so I can't substantiate it. Are they correct?Well that's enough debate to warrant an entire thread of it's own...
What I see is developers raping habitat, building a pond where the wetlands were and then leaving town. The eagles are moving out west to older pasture, and bald eagle populations are strong, however that area will be the next target for the developers as our human population increases. There is certainly a slowdown in building at this time due to over-development and a bursting market bubble... but looking at the long term I think we both know that Florida with its sunny warm days and mild winters, beaches from border to border, and fresh water everywhere will be the place to move to again. Florida finally gave the gopher tortoise some stronger rights this month, after the damage to their mounds has been done and is irreversible. (developers just plowed them over and called it incidental loss) Then there are the bobcats 'intruding' into civilization, gators, brown bears, and even the scrub jay. B.S. I say - build it higher or limit growth altogether to city limits... no "re-zoning" of ag and low-density lands... stop urban sprawl. I would rather see a twenty story condominium developed on fifty acres of natural habitat with one road in and one road out than see 750 single family homes crammed onto that same land - that's how they do it now.
See, ya got me started again!:p

[mactastic]

Best, though, from an aesthetic standpoint, would be to buy the land and don't do any development.

'Rat
And how do you suggest that occur? Are you willing to spend your money on something that has no ROI?

[mactastic]

If you were to develop bald eagle breeding grounds because you were protesting against the government then there might be a connection.

Just like if someone needed to burn the american flag for heat, that wouldn't fall under "flag burning" proper.
So if a DFH tells you he's burning the flag for heat despite the fact that he is doing it on a hot day, that makes it ok?

[Swarmlord]

Dear mactastic,

I was confused by the thread title. I thought you meant the development of a habitat for bald eagles, but you meant to say - development in bald eagle habitats.

Now I'll give you my opinion:

I think bald eagles should take precedence over any kind of land development.

I think grizzly bears should take precedence over any kind of land development.

I think wolves should take precedence over any kind of land development.

Get the idea? ;)

So, you live in a place that never had wild animals that were displaced?

[Swarmlord]

And how do you suggest that occur? Are you willing to spend your money on something that has no ROI?

Ted Turner seems to have figured out a way to lock up 2 million acres of land and still makes enough from the bison he has on them to make it worth his while.

[ghall]

There was this piece of land near where I live. Used to be a driving range for golfers. Beautiful field, and it was used by geese as well. It was nice to see a piece of land that both humans and animals could share. So the land was bought up, and now there's a big ugly Super Stop & Shop right there. Now the geese can't use that land any more. What really gets me is that NOBODY CARES that they are causing damage to the life of another species. They took over a beautiful, and functional piece of land, and built a giant super market, just so a few people wouldn't have to drive an extra 10 minutes to the next town and go to the Stop & Shop there. It's disgusting!

[Ugg]

Ted Turner seems to have figured out a way to lock up 2 million acres of land and still makes enough from the bison he has on them to make it worth his while.


Get real, it's a big tax write off and feel good scheme. Not to mention all the federal subsidies he gets.

[Swarmlord]

Get real, it's a big tax write off and feel good scheme. Not to mention all the federal subsidies he gets.

The wildlife don't know that nor do they care.

He's not paving over the land, putting in a strip mine or clear cutting the woods - that was my point.

There are a lot more examples of private parties and even organizations buying up land specifically to set it aside that probably have more altruistic motives than Ted (and I'm not a fan of Ted otherwise).

[LethalWolfe]

The wildlife don't know that nor do they care.


I dunno man... Bison can be pretty touchy. They're all probably planning a mass suicide to get back at Ted for using them as a tax write off instead of only genuinely caring about their well being. Mighty spiteful creatures those bison...


Lethal

[MACDRIVE]

So, you live in a place that never had wild animals that were displaced?

I think the point you're making is that it's impossible to build a residential or commercial area without displacing some kind of wild life; is that what you meant? If so than I agree.

To answer your question: this area I'm living in now used to be grape vineyards; and before that the California desert. So I imagine quite a few jack rabbits were displaced as well as a whole fortitude of other wild life such as field mice and magnificent hawks.

:(

[mactastic]

There are a lot more examples of private parties and even organizations buying up land specifically to set it aside that probably have more altruistic motives than Ted (and I'm not a fan of Ted otherwise).
And there are vastly more examples of private parties and even organizations buying up land specifically to develop it for financial motives.

What I'm curious about is whether killing a bald eagle - lets just say as a protest against environmental policies - is pissing on the troops the way flag burning is.

[Desertrat]

"And how do you suggest that occur? Are you willing to spend your money on something that has no ROI?"

You've heard of the Nature Conservancy? If not, check it out.

Me, I have right at 800 acres that's not gonna get developed in my lifetime, and probably not in my son's lifetime. Wildlife habitat. Not many mule deer, but dove/quail/badger/skunk/bobcat/coyote/fox/raccoon/javelina and miscellaneous little critters. And a couple of resident Mama Cougars nearby.

Don't want land developed? Buy it. Do a low-key hunting thing, and in Texas you can get the same ad valorem tax break on the land as for farming and ranching.

Back to the iggles: From a National Geographic program on bald eagles at a lake up in the Cascades, they hang around the shoreline trees along the lake. If that's standard behavior, then residential development some small distance back from the shore won't bother the birds. In wooded country, a buffer zone of a hundred yards or so should be sufficient. In more open country, farther; probably a couple of hundred yards.

In general, critters aren't as bothered by people's activities as a lot of folks think. (I wonder if the raccoons still come to the back door of Smitty's bar in Sausalito, to get leftover rolls. If Smity's is still there.) As long as the habitat isn't reduced to any extent, they make out okay. Probably more wildlife losses from vehicle impacts on highways, and bird losses from all those towers we need for cell phones and TVs, than from actual habitat reduction.

A lot of what folks think they know just isn't so. As example, during the deer season in Texas in 1963, the state's wildlife folks' survey claimed a hunter kill of some 15,000 deer in three counties northwest of Austin. Sounds like a lot? The winter kill because of drouth--"natural causes"--was claimed to be 17,000. And the three counties still had--and have--an over-population of deer, based on the carrying capacity of the land. Runty little things.

Y'all like kitty cats? Those nice, furry little critters? They kill hundreds of millions of song birds per year. The Wisconsin study is floating around the Web, somewhere...

'Rat

[srf4real]

What I'm curious about is whether killing a bald eagle - lets just say as a protest against environmental policies - is pissing on the troops the way flag burning is.
I dunno. Always imagined the bald eagle being more of a politics free symbol of freedom, more than the way the U.S. flag represents our military and government. An eagle represents freedom above and beyond the freedom even our great democracy offers to its citizens. To burn the flag is certainly a public political statement, which I do not object to, although I do not consider myself one who would ever diss in this way...

To kill an eagle is just plain proof you're an idiot, unless you're starving and you've got to eat the poor thing.:cool:

[Desertrat]

Awwww, nawww, don't eat a bald iggle. Doesn't taste nearly as good as whooping crane. :D

To be serious for a half a moment, mountain lion is as good a meat as there is, and better than a lot of store-bought stuff. Seriously good-tasting!

'Rat

[Sun Baked]

Awwww, nawww, don't eat a bald iggle. Doesn't taste nearly as good as whooping crane...

:D, 'Rat

I sure am glad they didn't choose the turkey as the national symbol ... :o

Of couse eating rabbit for both Thanksgiving and Easter does have possibilities. ;)

[Desertrat]

Ben Franklin tried to get the wild turkey as the national bird. He thought it more noble than a scavenger like the eagle. And, after all, eagles make a good part of their living by taking osprey's fish away from them--and eating carrion just like a buzzard, for that matter. They ain't real proud. But I guess you could say they're as opportunistic as people...

:), 'Rat

[obeygiant]

What I'm curious about is whether killing a bald eagle - lets just say as a protest against environmental policies - is pissing on the troops the way flag burning is.

I don't know... probably not. Whats your stance on the issue?

[mactastic]

I don't know... probably not. Whats your stance on the issue?
Me? I'm not big on symbols being as important as the ideal. I thought I made that clear in the flag burning debate.

The question was posed more to those who have come in here accusing those of us who tolerate flag burning of not loving our country or supporting the troops who fought for her. There were some pretty harsh assessments from people like Sushi about protecting the symbols of our nation, and I wanted to find out if that protection is limited to symbols they choose, or if there is a more rational distinction (assuming they don't feel killing an eagle to be a problem).

Out of curiousity, why would you feel it's "probably not" similar to flag burning? Are the symbols we choose to defend arbitrary?

[Desertrat]

Pardon the ramble: First off, to me the flag is more the symbol of an ideal, not the U.S. of A. as it is. It's the symbol of what could be, should be, what's hoped for. It's not the symbol of Bush or Clinton or the Congress or the bureaucracies, but what we hope to be as a society. So, I'm agin burning it. At the same time, I figure people have a God-given right to be stupid. That's just my opinion, of course, and the YMMV applies.

Okay: I'm happy to equate the eagle as symbolically equal to the flag. Fine by me.

In order to have eagles, ya gotta protect their habitat areas, including food supply and nesting areas. But, that's where arguments get started. My experience is that a limited amount of residential development doesn't do harm. Large-scale commercial or industrial development does.

'Rat

[mactastic]

My experience is that a limited amount of residential development doesn't do harm. Large-scale commercial or industrial development does.

'Rat
Which, of course, is the recipe for sprawl.

[Desertrat]

Buy it and don't develop it and you have less sprawl. Sprawl results from the opinion that having elbow room is better than living in a rabbit warren. "Five acres, five miles from town" is a strong emotional drive for millions of people; it's increased in these last dozen or so years as cities are more and more seen to be untenable.

And it's gotta be a helluva strong drive, when folks are paying $10,000 an acre for land where you can barely raise Hell...

Jamestown, VA, of course, was the first instance of European urban sprawl. :) Too many people.

'Rat

[FFTT]

May the droppings of 10,000 eagles rain down on the halls of Congress for this decision.

[mactastic]

Buy it and don't develop it and you have less sprawl. Sprawl results from the opinion that having elbow room is better than living in a rabbit warren. "Five acres, five miles from town" is a strong emotional drive for millions of people; it's increased in these last dozen or so years as cities are more and more seen to be untenable. Are you ordering people to buy land and not develop it? Are you going to get your gun out and point it at them and tell them not to develop land they've purchased with their money? You're just talking nonsense now.
How much debt does the average person carry? How prepared are they to purchase and set aside land to be free from development? And then is it singly for their enjoyment? No one else allowed?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. Either you're arguing that there is plenty of property in private hands to ensure species survival, or you're saying that people should be forced to spend their money preserving land because it's either that or the forces of development will inevitably take hold.

And it's gotta be a helluva strong drive, when folks are paying $10,000 an acre for land where you can barely raise Hell...
Increase that number by a factor of 10 and you're in the ballpark in my neck of the woods. And yet you expect me to just purchase large tracts to set aside.

[srf4real]

Either you're arguing that there is plenty of property in private hands to ensure species survival, or you're saying that people should be forced to spend their money preserving land because it's either that or the forces of development will inevitably take hold.
The public in Brevard county, Florida are forced to spend their money (1/2 percent sales tax) on private land acquisitions or the developers will flat clear it all. The politicians here are 'pro development' or 'smart development' as they like to call it... we the people voted to amend the sales tax so that there will be something left for not just the eagles, but so our water aquifers have somewhere to recharge from unpolluted rainwater. Acreage here runs from $15,000 to $40,000 an acre.

[Desertrat]

C'mon, mac, you're really stretching reality to think I'd ever go for forced non-development. I did bring up the Nature Conservancy, did I not? It is one of many organizations which buy habitat lands for non-development. They also buy development rights while leaving the farmer/rancher in place to continue his activities; what's called a "conservation easement". Ducks Unlimited is another; it's bought many thousands of acres of duck nesting habitat and flyway waterholes. And, as I said, I have my own little voluntary area...

I note that as we've entered an era of ranches specifically organized for hunting, there is more and more effort at rangeland restoration. Ted Turner's operations in (Wyoming or Montana; I disremember) and New Mexico are bringing back the original priairie grasslands habitat. Same sort of thing in southern Texas, with the reduction in land covered by mesquite and prickly pear; more grasses. Cedar-brush eradication in the Hill Country is bringing about the re-start of springflows that disappeared in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There are similar "doings" in Georgia and Florida.

'Rat

[mactastic]

C'mon, mac, you're really stretching reality to think I'd ever go for forced non-development. I did bring up the Nature Conservancy, did I not? It is one of many organizations which buy habitat lands for non-development. They also buy development rights while leaving the farmer/rancher in place to continue his activities; what's called a "conservation easement". Ducks Unlimited is another; it's bought many thousands of acres of duck nesting habitat and flyway waterholes. And, as I said, I have my own little voluntary area...

I note that as we've entered an era of ranches specifically organized for hunting, there is more and more effort at rangeland restoration. Ted Turner's operations in (Wyoming or Montana; I disremember) and New Mexico are bringing back the original priairie grasslands habitat. Same sort of thing in southern Texas, with the reduction in land covered by mesquite and prickly pear; more grasses. Cedar-brush eradication in the Hill Country is bringing about the re-start of springflows that disappeared in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There are similar "doings" in Georgia and Florida.

'Rat
So in essence what you are proposing is a race where one side can use the profits from their endevour to buy more land (a self-funding setup) versus another side that must constantly throw money into a hole from which there is no return?

[it5five]

In order to have eagles, ya gotta protect their habitat areas, including food supply and nesting areas. But, that's where arguments get started. My experience is that a limited amount of residential development doesn't do harm. Large-scale commercial or industrial development does.

'Rat

Residential development DOES do harm, especially in the case of the Desert Nesting Bald Eagle. The sprawl here is disgusting. There are new suburban communities, or "master planned communities" as the builders like to call them, popping up all the time. There are fewer than 50 couples left in Arizona, yet no special case was made for it when de-listing the eagle.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/species/eagle/Desert-Bald-Eagle.html

[dswoodley]

Ben Franklin tried to get the wild turkey as the national bird. He thought it more noble than a scavenger like the eagle. And, after all, eagles make a good part of their living by taking osprey's fish away from them--and eating carrion just like a buzzard, for that matter. They ain't real proud. But I guess you could say they're as opportunistic as people...

:), 'Rat

In many parts of Alaska (my state) Eagles are as common as rats in NY city. They hang out in the dump by the dozens in Dutch Harbor. They really can be disgusting birds. Other than that i have no relevant thoughts on the subject.

[Desertrat]

"So in essence what you are proposing is a race where one side can use the profits from their endevour to buy more land (a self-funding setup) versus another side that must constantly throw money into a hole from which there is no return?"

You wanna translate that into English? And define the "sides"?

it5five, I think you ignored my qualifier, "limited". And, coming late to this thread, you must not have read my earlier and more-complete thoughts about controlled development and wildlife.

'Rat

[mactastic]

"So in essence what you are proposing is a race where one side can use the profits from their endevour to buy more land (a self-funding setup) versus another side that must constantly throw money into a hole from which there is no return?"

You wanna translate that into English? And define the "sides"?
Ok, there's a finite amount of land available for development. One side, let's call them "corporatists" for fun, gets to buy up large swaths of land, build houses, business, schools, industrial plants, etc on the land that they purchase. The revenue stream from the sale of something that is vastly more valuable than it was prior to development is then able to be used to purchase more land and develop it. Not only is it self-financing, but the people doing it can make a sizable sum of money doing it. They also have no compunction about running endangered species off said land.

The other side, let's call them "statists" for fun, must continually raise money that is spent in aquiring land, but very little return can be made off the land without compromising the habitat of the creatures we're talking about here. Each time land is to be purchased, the money must be raised from scratch. No investment is paying for the purchase.

And you propose a race between these two groups over the available open space?

[Desertrat]

Remember that the developers don't run out and build just because of hope. They see a trend of demand, and fulfill it. As long as the population is growing and economic activity is increasing, somebody's gonna want a house or a business/industrial building.

The government isn't in the land-buying business but for relatively small tracts. They already own a bunch of land in the western states; over half of Nevada, for instance. The BLM alone has some 264 million acres in the 12 western states; the US Forest Service, 193 million acres.

So, most of the modern-era acquisitions which specifically benefit wildlife are in the private sector. Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, the Ted Turner types and the game ranches, and then little guys like me. As a generality, return on investment is relatively unimportant.

The commercial wildlife operations derive income from sale of hunting rights and from a relatively small amount of livestock. Controlled stocking maintains grasslands areas better than no stock.

All in all, in spite of urban sprawl, wildlife is generally doing quite well. Sure, there are some problem areas, but overall there is a vast improvement during these last forty or fifty years.

I guess your "competition" idea is true in localized areas. As a percentage of land area, though, even urban sprawl is a small amount. I vaguely recall that all urbanized areas in the U.S. represent some six percent of the country's land.

'Rat