U.S. Sued over 30-Year Permits to Legally Kill Eagles

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Laura Zuckerman

(Reuters) - A bird advocacy group sued the U.S. government on Thursday over rules it says loosen protections for eagles killed by wind turbines, arguing they threaten decades of protection that saved the bald eagle, America's national emblem, from extinction.

The American Bird Conservancy filed suit in federal court in California to challenge the authorization of 30-year permits to renewable energy developers to accidentally kill protected bald and golden eagles, which may die as a result of collisions with towering wind turbines.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“Eagles are among our nation’s most iconic and cherished birds. They do not have to be sacrificed for the next 30 years for the sake of unconstrained wind energy,” Michael Hutchins, coordinator of a wind energy panel with the American Bird Conservancy, said in a statement.

Federal laws like the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ban the killing of eagles without special permits, once issued for such restricted purposes as scientific research.

But U.S. wildlife managers expanded the permits in 2009 to include activities like renewable energy development, a top priority of the Obama administration, and lengthened them in December to 30 years from five.

The alternative energy industry had sought the changes to demonstrate to investors that developments like wind farms – many on or planned for public lands in the U.S. West – would not face the uncertainty that came with applying for new permits every five years.

The American Bird Conservancy argued in the lawsuit that by imposing the looser rules, the U.S. Interior Department and the Fish and Wildlife Service were in violation of landmark conservation laws designed to protect bald eagles, a bird stamped on the U.S. national seal, and for declining populations of golden eagles.

The American Wind Energy Association said in a statement on Thursday the permit program “appropriately balances wildlife conservation with the realities of the private sector.”

Conservationists accused the Obama administration of recklessly giving wind companies “a 30-year pass” to kill eagles without assessing the impact on the birds’ populations.

Fish and Wildlife Service spokeswoman Laury Parramore said the agency would not comment on pending or ongoing litigation.

The number of eagles killed by wind farms each year is disputed. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates 85 of the raptors have died that way since 1997, but the American Bird Conservancy says the wind industry has killed more than 2,000 eagles in three decades.

 

(Reporting by Laura Zuckerman in Salmon, Idaho; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Peter Cooney)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe