As has been reported widely, the bald eagle may soon be removed by the U.S. government from the endangered species list. (The rumor that Dick Cheney is salivating at the prospect of bagging one of the majestic birds has not been officially confirmed by the Vice President’s office.) This delisting appears to reflect the strong recovery from near-extinction that the bald eagle has made, as noted in the Washington Post:

When the first Europeans arrived in North America, an estimated 100,000 pairs of bald eagles populated the area that is now the lower 48 states. By 1963 that number had dropped to 417 pairs—the result of widespread use of the eggshell-thinning insecticide DDT and rampant development in bird breeding areas. Today the number of breeding pairs is estimated at 7,066, with the birds thriving in 49 states including Alaska, the one state in which they were never listed as threatened. (Bald eagles are not indigenous to Hawaii.)

Even if no longer afforded protections under the Endangered Species Act, the bald eagle would still be protected in some measure under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. What is of some concern, though—and perhaps less so now for our national symbol—is the threat to the Endangered Species Act itself. On September 29, by a vote of 229 to 193, the House of Representatives passed a bill that, according to the Endangered Species Coalition, “would significantly weaken protections for our nation’s fish, plants, wildlife, and the places they call home and dismantle the Endangered Species Act.� The bill is now up before the Senate (S. 2110). Of note is that the House resolution was pushed through by Rep. Richard Pombo, a controversial Republican from California who is now on the defensive for his anti-environmental stance and his reputed ties to lobbyist (and now convicted felon) Jack Abramoff, as reported in today’s Los Angeles Times:

After finally getting a bill through the House last fall that would eliminate habitat protections on more than 150 million acres, Pombo has never been closer to reaching his goal. But as the Senate prepares to take up his measure this year, Pombo finds himself on the defensive, with his ideology increasingly viewed as extreme and his connections to industry and to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff under scrutiny.

A seven-term Republican and chairman of the influential House Resources Committee, Pombo is a tax-cutting, anti-abortion, anti-gun-control conservative. But it is the 33-year-old species law that has been his political obsession. He has argued that it puts “endangered flies, beetles, rats and shellfish” before people. He has exaggerated the law’s impact on his own land. Besides curbing protections, his bill would require the federal government to pay owners for any restrictions on the use of their property….

Now though, instead of focusing on carrying his win to the Senate, he finds himself facing questions about his efforts on behalf of Abramoff clients. And a series of legislative maneuvers late last year called attention to what critics say is his record of pushing proposals that benefit his primary campaign contributors: agribusiness, the oil and gas industry, builders, utilities and mining.

In November, Pombo tacked onto a budget bill provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and expand oil and gas drilling off the nation’s coastlines, including California’s. Another rider would have reversed a long-standing moratorium on selling federal mineral lands to mining companies and opened up public lands to private development. And budget language drafted by Pombo’s staff—but never introduced—would have sold 15 national parks to raise federal revenue. Moderate Republicans blocked the drilling provisions while conservative Western GOP senators rallied by sportsmen’s groups killed the land sell-off. A key GOP senator has also raised doubts about elements of the species act revision.

In environmental circles, Pombo’s efforts cemented his reputation as the most dangerous man in Congress. And they provided fodder for a lengthening list of political opponents who challenge his carefully cultivated image as the straight-shooting protector of the rural little guy.

Should Pombo’s revision of the Endangered Species Act pass the Senate in its present form, it is likely that the bald eagle will come to symbolize not only the free-spirited ideals of this nation but also the neglectful stewardship of our natural heritage, as other species—having been denied the level of protection once afforded the eagle—are tragically relegated to extinction.