ESPN  

The bald eagle, America's signature bird, is likely to be removed from the endangered-species list within two weeks, after one of the most successful conservation efforts in history.

But the delisting itself isn't the result of direct action by environmentalists. The eagle is about to leave the federal nest because of a lawsuit by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit law firm that has waged war against environmental regulation.

Its chief target over the past three decades has been the federal Endangered Species Act, the legal framework that saved the bald eagle.

``The Endangered Species Act is a statute which has tremendously long and sharp teeth,'' said the group's president, Rob Rivett. ``We haven't been striving to delist the bald eagle. We've been striving to make sure the Endangered Species Act is enforced correctly and is not misused.''

The eagle with the piercing stare has symbolized America and freedom itself in almost every imaginable way, from government seals and postage stamps to pickup-truck advertising and the National Rifle Association logo.

Now the bald eagle, once considered a pest that was thought to harass livestock, will also stand as a symbol of the American conservation ethic.

``The eagle is a powerful example that the recovery of once-endangered species is within our means,'' said Michael Bean, who chairs the wildlife program at Environmental Defense.

The bald eagle was first declared an endangered species in 1967, under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, the precursor to today's law. It was among the first imperiled species to attain this dubious honor.

Over the years, the eagle's protected status dragged on, even as its population surged.

President Bill Clinton first promised to delist it in 1999, with a bald eagle at his side during a White House ceremony.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service never followed through, claiming the bird's wide-ranging nature and diverse habitats complicated planning for the status change.

So the Pacific Legal Foundation agreed to represent Edmund Contoski, a Minnesota property owner who claims he was prevented from subdividing a lakefront parcel because bald eagles nested in the trees.

The Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation sued in 2005, hoping to force delisting.

``As of 1999, at least, the government had concluded the eagle had been recovered,'' said Damien Schiff, the foundation attorney handling the eagle case. ``Yet our client and many others like him throughout the country had to labor under these restrictions, unnecessarily, for seven years.''

In August 2006, a federal judge agreed with Schiff and Contoski, ordering the government to rule on the eagle's status by Feb. 16. Most observers expect the decision will be to delist the eagle. Environmental groups support that.

The eagle's numbers for 2006, still estimates, indicate there are 9,350 breeding pairs in the lower 48 states, a dramatic improvement from about 417 in 1963.

But don't count on a truce. Battles are already brewing over how the eagle should be managed after delisting.

The birds will remain protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The 1940 law was passed to control overhunting of eagles, long before DDT came on the scene. The law made it illegal to ``disturb'' a bald eagle, but how that word is defined in the wake of delisting carries huge significance.

Also, some environmental groups want the Southwest population of the bald eagle, mostly in Arizona, to remain protected by the Endangered Species Act as a distinct population.

``The government does a lousy quality-control job of fulfilling its obligations,'' said Bill Curtiss, deputy director of Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm that is PLF's ideological opposite. ``That is a fact that we and PLF agree on.''

Both sides also agree that the government's ban on the pesticide DDT in 1972 contributed most to the eagle's recovery. DDT thinned eggshells and caused widespread reproductive failure.

The environmental movement rightly takes credit for the DDT ban, as well as the Endangered Species Act itself, which allowed protection of eagle habitat.

That protection also gave rise to the property-rights movement, and Pacific Legal Foundation became its litigious battering ram.

The foundation helps farmers, property owners and small businesses fight environmental laws. It has filed hundreds of lawsuits across the country, challenging government actions that it claims restrict property rights and the free hand of commerce.

It has also challenged affirmative-action rules, and defended the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gays and atheists.

The foundation has had many victories, including delisting the Oregon coast coho salmon, in 2004.

Curtiss said Rivett's group is really out to dismantle and undermine the Endangered Species Act, and has served as a ``cloak'' for the home-building industry.

``In the bald eagle case, they represent a guy who's a subdivider,'' Curtiss said.

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)