The bald eagle is just one of many American birds that would be extinct if the U.S. government hadn’t outlawed DDT.
You can’t be serious.
That is a myth. Fact sheet follows:
One of the most prominent and persistent myths about DDT is that it decimated American bald eagle populations, and that the 1972 ban of DDT saved the eagle from extinction. The facts simply do not support these claims.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before the pesticide was used widely in agriculture.
Just as incredibly, by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. US Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagles, from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, at a time when DDT was still being used all over the United States, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a widespread loss of suitable habitat. But it also noted that illegal shooting was still the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles, according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
None of these reports implicated DDT. In fact, in addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicated the chemical.
US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs, according to a 1966 report published in the Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.
The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the United States between 1961 and 1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
One of the most notorious DDT myths is that it thinned bird egg shells. However, a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds likewise indicated that DDT is not associated with egg shell thinning.
In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment (and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild).
The amounts of DDT used in modern indoor spraying programs are infinitesimal, compared to what was once used in agriculture. And those programs spray the chemical only on walls of homes, so virtually no DDT will get into the environment.
Even a Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry study cited by anti-DDT activist Rachel Carson actually said the opposite of what she claimed. Carson asserted that few eggs hatched when birds were fed high doses of DDT during their breeding season. But the study found that 80% of “DDT” quail eggs hatched – compared with 84% of eggs from birds that were fed no DDT. In the case of pheasants, 80% of “DDT” eggs hatched – compared with only 57% of eggs from birds that had no DDT in their diets.
So what does cause thin bird eggshells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil, lead and mercury (in an era when many chemicals were routinely discharged into US lakes and rivers); stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; and nutrient deficiencies, especially calcium.
From: www.eco-imperialism.com
Based on what science do you say this?
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.
Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942. Ge that might reduce the population in the Sate with the largest eagle population. Don't you think?
After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.
No significant correlation between DDT residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDT residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]
U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970).[U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."[Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200] Please site your sources.
Based on what science do you say this?
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.
Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942. Ge that might reduce the population in the Sate with the largest eagle population. Don't you think?
After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.
No significant correlation between DDT residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDT residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]
U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970).[U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."[Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200] Please site your sources.
Based on what science do you say this?
Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife." [Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages). Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT.
Alaska paid over $100,000 in bounties for 115,000 bald eagles between 1917 and 1942. Ge that might reduce the population in the Sate with the largest eagle population. Don't you think?
After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.
No significant correlation between DDT residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs.[Postupalsky, S. 1971. (DDT residues and shell thickness). Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971]
U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity (51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970).[U.S. Forest Service (Milwaukee, WI). 1970. Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that "DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs."[Stickel, L. 1966. Bald eagle-pesticide relationships. Trans 31st N Amer Wildlife Conference, pp.190-200] Please site your sources.