5 ms·

They were not even endangered in the US but in the contiguous US. There was always a large population in Alaska such that people were paid to cull them. Many "

They were not even endangered in the US but in the contiguous US. There was always a large population in Alaska such that people were paid to cull them. Many "endangered" animals in the US are not endangered in the sense of extinction but in the sense that they are leaving some part of their native range. They are often "endangered in $LOCALE", not endangered generally.

odyssey7 2y ago
I feel that eagles that can fly large distances are in a different category from land animals, which have greater pressures to adapt their lineages to particular geographic ranges, to specialize within the species. For example, the Florida Panther: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_panther https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_panther
willturman 2y ago
This is so unbelievably lazy. You even say this in reference to Eagles, which are a migratory species whose range crosses hemispheres, as if the contiguous United States is some small aside on that path. “Don’t worry about the regional extinction of a migratory apex predator because they’re conveniently thriving in dumpsters behind the McDonalds in a town in Alaska.”
- shutupnerd0000 2y ago
  Can you blame them though? Big Macs are quite tasty
  - willturman 2y ago
    > “We’re used to seeing America’s national bird depicted as a majestic hero plucking wild salmon from pristine streams. But here you can see eagles for what they really are: scrappy, opportunistic feeders. If fresh fish isn’t available, the birds will eat seagulls, ducks, squirrels, mice, the occasional raven, bits of rotten meat dug out of the trash—or, in one case, a piece of pepperoni pizza snatched out of a teenager’s hand. Like us, eagles are adaptable. We should be proud.” [1] America’s national symbol reduced to dumpster diving and fast food. It scans. [1]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/explore-bird-bald-eagle-dirty https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/explore-...
    - bluedino 2y ago
      Didn't Benjamin Franklin suggest the Turkey instead?
      - beeflet 2y ago
        IDK how comfortable people would be eating the national bird every thanksgiving
        mikestew 2y ago
        Considering that the taste is much like bald eagle, I think folks might be comfortable reversing the two.
        zoky 2y ago
        Reminds me of that joke about the guy who is on trial for killing a bald eagle, and he tells the judge that it was a life-or-death situation: He was lost in the woods, and after several weeks without food he luckily happened upon a bald eagle that he managed to trap and eat to avoid starvation. The judge says, “Well, in that case, we can let you go. But tell me, what does a bald eagle taste like?” “Oh, sort of a cross between a spotted owl and a California condor.”
        kulahan 2y ago
        Surely the primarily meat-eating eagle would taste different from the primarily bug/seed eating turkey, no?
        mikestew 2y ago
        Not in the universe in which this joke takes place, no.
        shermantanktop 2y ago
        When given a choice between universes, choose the funnier one. Unless the joke is on you…
- gosub100 2y ago
  > Don’t worry... that part was fiction, added by you, represented as if he said it.
  - kulahan 2y ago
    It is pretty clearly implied.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      only if you extend the definition of "endangered" , this argument/position hinges on the definition of a single word. the far left wants to extend the definition of that word to mean the most devastating, irreversible, "give-us-money-or-the-bird-gets-it" definition possible. The GP however, explains that the dire extreme doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
      - lkramer 2y ago
        Thanks for making it political... For what it's worth, the far right is perfectly capable of weaponize conservation. Think of the war on windmills.
      - gotoeleven 2y ago
        Its always word games. The word games only work for so long before people realize they're being tricked. Environmentalists that were honest rather than sensational would probably be better for the environment in the long run.
        watwut 2y ago
        It does not matter, conservatives will willify them all. And will lie about nature and about what environmentalists say. Stop this nonsense where republicans and their donors damage things, lie and then blame their opposition for not being perfect.
- jandrewrogers 2y ago
  My parents lived in a small village in Alaska in the 1990s. Much too small to have a McDonalds or even dumpsters. They had resident bald eagles in the same way many cities have pigeons. That entire region of North America has always been like this. They’ve culled hundreds of thousands of the birds over the last century because they can become a nuisance, particularly if over-populated. They’ll eat anything that looks like meat. In the same way, the brown bear is almost non-existent in its native range in the contiguous US, but abundant further north. The bald eagle gets somewhat special treatment because it is a national symbol.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    Yeah, there are only a few pockets of grizzlies left in the lower 48, and one of them connects to their larger territory in Canada. They used to roam throughout Washington's Cascades but are completely gone, so much so that there are efforts to reintroduce them in the NCNP soon.
    - lazystar 2y ago
      Reintroduce.... grizzlies? I know the wolf reintroduction was beneficial, but wolves have killed a grand total of 2 humans in north america in the 21st century. Grizzlies, in contrast, have 11 kills in half a decade (2020- 2025). That's an order of magnitude higher of the danger each one poses, so I'm curious if the grizzly reintroduction yaysayer arguments are using wolve reintroduction as a positive example.
      - theiebrjfb 2y ago
        [flagged]
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        This is a troll (or sarcasm), but a dangerously misleading one, especially the least paragraph.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >This is so unbelievably lazy. >You even say this in reference to the Eagles, which are a migratory species whose range crosses hemispheres, as if the contiguous United States is some small aside on that path. And yet, according to Wikipedia... >In the late 20th century it was on the brink of extirpation in the contiguous United States, but measures such as banning the practice of hunting bald eagles and banning the use of the harmful pesticide DDT slowed the decline of their population. Populations have since recovered, and the species' status was upgraded from "endangered" to "threatened" in 1995 and removed from the list altogether in 2007. The irony of calling someone "unbelievably lazy" without maybe checking to see if there was some accuracy to what they were saying is... lol.
  - willturman 2y ago
    It’s unbelievably lazy to trivialize biodiversity loss given the fact that we’re in the midst of the Anthropocene Extinction. We should all be grateful to Canada for being a refuge for so many species we slaughtered with westward expansion. You’ll find a list here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_reintroduction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_reintroduction Again, Eagles are a migratory species, that they subsisted by eating garbage in small town Alaska having been hunted and DDT’d to extinction in the lower 48 isn’t the feather in your cap you think it is. The point is that we killed all of the eagles in the lower 48 - a huge swath of territory.
    - jjulius 2y ago
      >... that they're thriving eating garbage in small town Alaska... This is an "unbelievably lazy" and fundamental misunderstanding of how vast and unpopulated Alaska is. I mean you've even got someone else[1] in this thread with experience highlighting that your assertion is inaccurate. >... and DDT'd to extinction in the lower 48... You completely missed the part of the quote, in my comment, that very clearly states they were never extinct, and were upgraded from "endangered" to "threatened", and then removed from the list entirely in 2007. >The point is that we killed all of the eagles in the lower 48 - a huge swath of territory. It was never true that we killed all of them in the lower 48. Please go read the previously linked Wiki article. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180488
- timewizard 2y ago
  Man.. c'mon.. I had a rough night and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man..
ajross 2y ago
> Many "endangered" animals in the US are not endangered in the sense of extinction but in the sense that they are leaving some part of their native range. I'm reading this and not understanding where you're going with it. I mean, I get the libertarian bent of the argument: the government is overreaching in an attempt to preserve that which is unimportant, or something to that effect. But what is the policy aim here? You want eagles to be removed from the endangered species list[1] for... what? So farmers can use DDT again? (The article points out, correctly, that DDT is believed to be the single largest cause of their decline). That seems poorly grounded. Honestly mostly this just sounds like whining to me. [1] Which already happened. In 1995! They remained Threatened until 2007 when even that category was removed. In point of fact the success of the bald eagle recovery seems like an argument in favor of species-based conservation efforts. Do you really disagree?
- jdminhbg 2y ago
  Seems to me like the post is just noting that if you want to postfix "in the US" to "endangered," you should more properly postfix "in the contiguous US." I have no idea why the DDT rant.
- linkregister 2y ago
  Pursuit of the truth is worthwhile in and of itself.
  - ajross 2y ago
    The word "Endangered" in this context (which, again, hasn't applied to the bald eagle for 30 years!) is defined by and used within the context of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Inserting an "actuallly" argument is doing nothing but harming understanding.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      It is common for people to have an understanding of terms which differs from their precise legal definition, and the difference between the two can be interesting.

odyssey7 2y ago

I feel that eagles that can fly large distances are in a different category from land animals, which have greater pressures to adapt their lineages to particular geographic ranges, to specialize within the species. For example, the Florida Panther: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_panther https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_panther

willturman 2y ago

This is so unbelievably lazy. You even say this in reference to Eagles, which are a migratory species whose range crosses hemispheres, as if the contiguous United States is some small aside on that path. “Don’t worry about the regional extinction of a migratory apex predator because they’re conveniently thriving in dumpsters behind the McDonalds in a town in Alaska.”

shutupnerd0000 2y ago
Can you blame them though? Big Macs are quite tasty
- willturman 2y ago
  > “We’re used to seeing America’s national bird depicted as a majestic hero plucking wild salmon from pristine streams. But here you can see eagles for what they really are: scrappy, opportunistic feeders. If fresh fish isn’t available, the birds will eat seagulls, ducks, squirrels, mice, the occasional raven, bits of rotten meat dug out of the trash—or, in one case, a piece of pepperoni pizza snatched out of a teenager’s hand. Like us, eagles are adaptable. We should be proud.” [1] America’s national symbol reduced to dumpster diving and fast food. It scans. [1]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/explore-bird-bald-eagle-dirty https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/explore-...
  - bluedino 2y ago
    Didn't Benjamin Franklin suggest the Turkey instead?
    - beeflet 2y ago
      IDK how comfortable people would be eating the national bird every thanksgiving
      - mikestew 2y ago
        Considering that the taste is much like bald eagle, I think folks might be comfortable reversing the two.
        zoky 2y ago
        Reminds me of that joke about the guy who is on trial for killing a bald eagle, and he tells the judge that it was a life-or-death situation: He was lost in the woods, and after several weeks without food he luckily happened upon a bald eagle that he managed to trap and eat to avoid starvation. The judge says, “Well, in that case, we can let you go. But tell me, what does a bald eagle taste like?” “Oh, sort of a cross between a spotted owl and a California condor.”
        kulahan 2y ago
        Surely the primarily meat-eating eagle would taste different from the primarily bug/seed eating turkey, no?
        mikestew 2y ago
        Not in the universe in which this joke takes place, no.
        shermantanktop 2y ago
        When given a choice between universes, choose the funnier one. Unless the joke is on you…
gosub100 2y ago
> Don’t worry... that part was fiction, added by you, represented as if he said it.
- kulahan 2y ago
  It is pretty clearly implied.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    only if you extend the definition of "endangered" , this argument/position hinges on the definition of a single word. the far left wants to extend the definition of that word to mean the most devastating, irreversible, "give-us-money-or-the-bird-gets-it" definition possible. The GP however, explains that the dire extreme doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
    - lkramer 2y ago
      Thanks for making it political... For what it's worth, the far right is perfectly capable of weaponize conservation. Think of the war on windmills.
    - gotoeleven 2y ago
      Its always word games. The word games only work for so long before people realize they're being tricked. Environmentalists that were honest rather than sensational would probably be better for the environment in the long run.
      - watwut 2y ago
        It does not matter, conservatives will willify them all. And will lie about nature and about what environmentalists say. Stop this nonsense where republicans and their donors damage things, lie and then blame their opposition for not being perfect.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
My parents lived in a small village in Alaska in the 1990s. Much too small to have a McDonalds or even dumpsters. They had resident bald eagles in the same way many cities have pigeons. That entire region of North America has always been like this. They’ve culled hundreds of thousands of the birds over the last century because they can become a nuisance, particularly if over-populated. They’ll eat anything that looks like meat. In the same way, the brown bear is almost non-existent in its native range in the contiguous US, but abundant further north. The bald eagle gets somewhat special treatment because it is a national symbol.
- jjulius 2y ago
  Yeah, there are only a few pockets of grizzlies left in the lower 48, and one of them connects to their larger territory in Canada. They used to roam throughout Washington's Cascades but are completely gone, so much so that there are efforts to reintroduce them in the NCNP soon.
  - lazystar 2y ago
    Reintroduce.... grizzlies? I know the wolf reintroduction was beneficial, but wolves have killed a grand total of 2 humans in north america in the 21st century. Grizzlies, in contrast, have 11 kills in half a decade (2020- 2025). That's an order of magnitude higher of the danger each one poses, so I'm curious if the grizzly reintroduction yaysayer arguments are using wolve reintroduction as a positive example.
    - theiebrjfb 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        This is a troll (or sarcasm), but a dangerously misleading one, especially the least paragraph.
jjulius 2y ago
>This is so unbelievably lazy. >You even say this in reference to the Eagles, which are a migratory species whose range crosses hemispheres, as if the contiguous United States is some small aside on that path. And yet, according to Wikipedia... >In the late 20th century it was on the brink of extirpation in the contiguous United States, but measures such as banning the practice of hunting bald eagles and banning the use of the harmful pesticide DDT slowed the decline of their population. Populations have since recovered, and the species' status was upgraded from "endangered" to "threatened" in 1995 and removed from the list altogether in 2007. The irony of calling someone "unbelievably lazy" without maybe checking to see if there was some accuracy to what they were saying is... lol.
- willturman 2y ago
  It’s unbelievably lazy to trivialize biodiversity loss given the fact that we’re in the midst of the Anthropocene Extinction. We should all be grateful to Canada for being a refuge for so many species we slaughtered with westward expansion. You’ll find a list here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_reintroduction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_reintroduction Again, Eagles are a migratory species, that they subsisted by eating garbage in small town Alaska having been hunted and DDT’d to extinction in the lower 48 isn’t the feather in your cap you think it is. The point is that we killed all of the eagles in the lower 48 - a huge swath of territory.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >... that they're thriving eating garbage in small town Alaska... This is an "unbelievably lazy" and fundamental misunderstanding of how vast and unpopulated Alaska is. I mean you've even got someone else[1] in this thread with experience highlighting that your assertion is inaccurate. >... and DDT'd to extinction in the lower 48... You completely missed the part of the quote, in my comment, that very clearly states they were never extinct, and were upgraded from "endangered" to "threatened", and then removed from the list entirely in 2007. >The point is that we killed all of the eagles in the lower 48 - a huge swath of territory. It was never true that we killed all of them in the lower 48. Please go read the previously linked Wiki article. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180488
timewizard 2y ago
Man.. c'mon.. I had a rough night and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man..

ajross 2y ago

> Many "endangered" animals in the US are not endangered in the sense of extinction but in the sense that they are leaving some part of their native range. I'm reading this and not understanding where you're going with it. I mean, I get the libertarian bent of the argument: the government is overreaching in an attempt to preserve that which is unimportant, or something to that effect. But what is the policy aim here? You want eagles to be removed from the endangered species list[1] for... what? So farmers can use DDT again? (The article points out, correctly, that DDT is believed to be the single largest cause of their decline). That seems poorly grounded. Honestly mostly this just sounds like whining to me. [1] Which already happened. In 1995! They remained Threatened until 2007 when even that category was removed. In point of fact the success of the bald eagle recovery seems like an argument in favor of species-based conservation efforts. Do you really disagree?

jdminhbg 2y ago
Seems to me like the post is just noting that if you want to postfix "in the US" to "endangered," you should more properly postfix "in the contiguous US." I have no idea why the DDT rant.
linkregister 2y ago
Pursuit of the truth is worthwhile in and of itself.
- ajross 2y ago
  The word "Endangered" in this context (which, again, hasn't applied to the bald eagle for 30 years!) is defined by and used within the context of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Inserting an "actuallly" argument is doing nothing but harming understanding.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    It is common for people to have an understanding of terms which differs from their precise legal definition, and the difference between the two can be interesting.