Review of the proposal to de-list the American peregrine falcon

• Published in: Wildlife Society bulletin 1998-10, Vol.26 (3), p.522-538
• Main Authors: Millsap, B.A, Kennedy, P.L, Byrd, M.A, Court, G, Enderson, J.H, Rosenfield, R.N
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Birds; Birds of prey; Eggshells; Endangered & extinct species; endangered species; environmental policy; Falco; falco peregrinus anatum; Falcons; Federal government; Population Estimation and Monitoring; Population growth; Productivity; recovery plans; Regulatory agencies; Taxa; Wildlife biology; Wildlife conservation; Wildlife ecology; Wildlife management
• ISSN: 0091-7648; 1938-5463

On 30 June 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published an Advance Notice of an Intent (Notice of Intent) to remove the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum; hereafter referred to as American peregrine) from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. In October 1995, the Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) appointed an ad hoc committee to review scientific data available on the American peregrine's status. This paper summarizes the committee's findings and recommendations, which were based on a comparison of current biological data with recovery goals specified in recovery plans. Our review indicated that: (1) goals for numbers of territorial pairs in regional recovery plans appeared to have been reached or exceeded by 1995 in the Alaska Recovery Region, Pacific Recovery Region, Rocky Mountain Southwest Recovery Region, and Canadian Recovery Region, but not in the Eastern Recovery Region; (2) state or zone goals within recovery regions for numbers of pairs were known to have been met by 1995 in only the Canadian Recovery Region; (3) goals for sustaining the desired number of territorial pairs over time were not known to have been met in the Alaska Recovery Region (the only region with such a recovery goal); (4) goals for the average number of young fledged per territorial pair were known to have been met by 1995 in the Alaska and Rocky Mountain Southwest Recovery Regions, but were not known to have been met in the Pacific and Canadian Recovery Regions; and (5) goals for levels of organochlorine pesticide contamination in American peregrine eggs were not known to have been met by 1995 in the 2 recovery regions where such goals had been established. Despite the fact that data were not available to document achievement of all recovery goals, we concluded that the available population data demonstrated a consistent picture of nearly a range-wide population increase over at least the past decade. We unanimously thought that the status of the American peregrine warranted down-listing or de-listing. However, a minority of members was concerned that sufficient data were not available to evaluate the sustainability of recovery and whether or not causes of endangerment had been eliminated. A majority of members concluded that populations in the Alaska, Pacific, Rocky Mountain Southwest, and Canadian recovery regions are not at risk of becoming endangered in the immediate future because numeric population recovery goals had been attained and, th