Reading the recent article about eagles in Maine (BDN, Feb 18) reminded me of the expression: “a mackerel in the moonlight – it shines and smells at the same time.” No doubt, the bald eagle has made a great recovery over the past 25 years, in part due to cleaning up our environment. And Maine’s Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) has been doing a good job of mapping the location of nesting sites. But identifying the location of active eagles’ nests and protecting those sites from disturbance are not the same thing.

The article references habitat loss, human disturbance and high levels of mercury in our environment as “factors limiting the birds’ return to the area.” Add to these threats that current state and federal regulations provide little protection for bald eagle nesting sites. Evidence of this becomes apparent when one considers how a tree with an eagle’s nest was cut down last fall near Spencer Pond in the Moosehead region (see Susan Young’s Bangor Daily News article of Jan 19-20).

This particular nest was in an area designated by IF&W as an Essential Wildlife Habitat for bald eagles under Maine’s Endangered Species Act. Didn’t this mean that the eagles and their nest would be protected? Obviously not, since there is no reference to limiting timber harvesting in either the Atlas of Essential Wildlife Habitats for Maine’s Endangered and Threatened Species nor Maine’s Endangered Species Act. And activities of landowners are not affected by IF&W’s Essential Habitat designations unless the activities require a permit or license from a governing body. In this case, even though the timber company was cutting near a known eagle’s nest, and even though both IF&W and the forester knew that there was an eagle’s nest in the vicinity, no oversight was provided because apparently no license or permit was required. Thus an active eagle’s nest ended up on the ground.

But unless it can be shown that someone intentionally or deliberately disturbs an eagle nest site, current federal and state laws do not apply. Negligence is never mentioned. Is this adequate protection for our eagles’ nests?

I find it hard to believe with the current weak regulations governing activities in essential habitat areas, and with IF&W’s reliance upon voluntary landowner compliance in order to protect threatened and endangered species, that eagles’ nests, particularly in remote areas, are not being disturbed on a regular basis without our knowing about it. Maybe this is why the eagle has not recovered as well inland as it has along the coast. Maybe this is why the nest around Spencer Pond was cut down.

Rep. Joe Brooks, D-Winterport, has introduced a bill, LD 2104, to further protect the nesting habitat of endangered and threatened species. The bill, which will be heard at 1 p.m. Wednesday, March 13 in Room 206 of the State Office Building, requires landowners, when filing a harvesting plan, to indicate known nesting sites in a proposed harvesting area by reviewing IF&W’s Essential Habitat maps.

This bill is an attempt to eliminate a current loophole in our state regulations that allow activities of landowners that disturb eagle’s nests. The Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife will hear LD 2104 soon. The committee and our legislators need to hear from the public that we support this bill and increased protection for bald eagles and other threatened and endangered species.

This bill will be meaningless, however, if bald eagles are de-listed. Because the total number of nesting sites, as counted by IF&W, has increased close to IF&W’s target number for removal of the bald eagle from the threatened species list, the time is coming soon when de-listing will be considered. If the bald eagle were de-listed, IF&W would no longer be required to identify eagle nest sites. We would lose our only means of scientifically monitoring these sites. Surveillance flights to identify new and active nest sites will be discontinued. The department has notified landowners with active eagles’ nests on their properties that once the eagle has been de-listed, all essential habitat designations would be removed. Without these maps designating essential habitat areas, how are landowners going to know where nest sites are located?

How, as was the case at Spencer Pond, would a landowner locate a nest when an eagle moves its nest to another tree near the old one? Present protections, weak as they may be, will be lost. We would have to rely even further upon landowners voluntarily agreeing to protect our eagles. Was the nest at Spencer Pond protected?

Two things need to happen if the public wants further protection for Maine’s bald eagle population. The bald eagle must not be taken off the threatened species list until habitat loss, human disturbance, and mercury poisoning are no longer threats. And current regulations need to be strengthened in order to truly protect nest sites from activities that have an adverse effect upon eagles.

Rep. Brooks’ bill should be supported. Despite what IF&W would have you believe, there is a difference between counting eagle nest sites and protecting those sites from disturbance. It’s like the mackerel in the moonlight!

Bob Croce of Dedham owns Spencer Pond Camps.