By David Wojick
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act specifically says that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) cannot issue more “take” (that is kill) permits than the population can survive. Two new studies together imply that the golden eagle wind-kill taking is at that limit or beyond.
Clearly FWS must stop issuing new wind turbine take permits until it rigorously assesses this situation. No new wind turbines should be erected. Some presently in operation may have to shut down. Fortunately, new eagle kill permits are presently on hold under the President’s Executive Order, but we are also talking about the law.
The primary area of concern is the western range of the Golden Eagle. This runs from Montana, Idaho, and Washington down to the Mexico border. Note that the eagles often migrate north to spend the summer in Canada, so the more northern states see a lot more than their local winter populations.
However, the entire US population is only about 30,000 eagles, down from an estimated 80,000 in 1980, and they are found everywhere. Thus the entire country might be in need of care.
The first study is “Age-specific survival rates, causes of death, and allowable take of Golden Eagles in the western United States,” Ecological Applications, January 2022 and it is here.
The primary point is to estimate the allowable take (death rate from human action) under the law and compare that to the present death rate. Their allowable take estimate is a range with a median of 2,227 deaths per year, while their estimated actual take is actually greater at 2,572 annual deaths.
These are very rough numbers, so the basic point is it looks like we are already at the allowable take. Adding a lot of eagle-killing wind turbines could put the Golden Eagle on the illegal road to extinction. Clearly, caution is called for.
The second study attempts to quantify the wind-killing threat. The study is “Estimated Golden Eagle mortality from wind turbines in the western United States,” Biological Conservation, February 2025, here.
Their primary conclusion is this: “Anthropogenic mortality is the primary cause of death in adult Golden Eagles and recent trends indicate their population may be declining. If the current rate of growth of the wind energy industry continues, it could have conservation implications for Golden Eagle and other raptor populations.”
They use a collision risk model that combines the spatial population density of the eagles with the spatial density of the spinning blades. This captures the fact that in addition to wind turbines getting more numerous, they are also getting much bigger.
As an aside, I proposed a roughly similar approach to quantifying the increasing risk to whales from offshore wind development. Here the wind projects force the whales into areas of greater ship traffic.
See my “The whale killing study the Feds are afraid to do” here.
Also “How to kill whales with offshore wind” here.
Neither of these eagle studies is definitive; far from it. In fact, some of their numbers disagree. The point is that the Fish and Wildlife Service must itself conduct a rigorous assessment of the allowable take for Golden Eagles and the potential impact of additional wind development on that take.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act requires such an assessment because the FWS is prohibited from approving a cumulative take that exceeds the allowable limit. This takes us beyond the wind power executive order which also calls for an ecological assessment of wind power. It is the law.
The threat to Golden Eagles from wind is potentially enormous. Wind power generating capacity today is about 160,000 MW. The queue of new wind interconnection applications is around an incredible 230,000 additional MW. Much of that is within the western range of the eagle, and they are also found in every continental state.
The Fish and Wildlife Service simply must address this huge potential threat before any new take permits are issued to wind turbine facilities. Moreover, the assessment and underlying data must be made public under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This is clearly a NEPA action.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
EPA, NOAA, BOEM, etc., with their glossy, dubious, hastily concocted, environmental approvals/licenses, are traitorous organizations undermining the NORAD defense of the US, by rooting for/approving, super-expensive, $/MW, environmentally harmful, highly subsidized, offshore windmill systems, that produce super-expensive, weather-dependent, variable, grid-disturbing, electricity, c/kWh, that further enriches the tax shelters of the moneyed elites, at the expense of all others, and would make the US even less competitive on world markets, which helps trade surpluses of Europe, China, etc.
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public
By Willem Post
.
What is generally not known, the more weather-dependent W/S systems, the less efficient the other, traditional generators, as they inefficiently counteract the increasingly larger ups and downs of W/S output. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed
.
W/S systems add great cost to the overall delivery of electricity to users; the more W/S systems, the higher the cost/kWh, as proven by the UK and Germany, with the highest electricity rates in Europe, and near-zero, real-growth GDPs
At about 30% W/S, the entire system hits an increasingly thicker concrete wall, operationally and cost wise.
UK and Germany have hit the wall, more and more hours each day.
The cost of electricity delivered to users increased with each additional W/S/B system
.
Base-load nuclear, gas and coal plants are the only rational way forward, plus the additional CO2 is very beneficial for additional flora and fauna growth and increased crop yields to feed hungry people.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/we-are-in-a-co2-famine
.
Subsidies shift costs from project Owners to ratepayers, taxpayers, government debt:
1) Federal and state tax credits, up to 50% (Community tax credit of 10 percent – Federal tax credit of 30 percent – State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%);
2) 5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project;
3) Loan interest deduction
.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which leads to more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more W/S systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in de-growth mode.
That economy has been tied into knots by inane people.
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars using your vote, and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower.
The bureaucrats rooting for bird-chopping windmills, are also moaning and groaning about saving the American Eagle.
They change their tunes, depending on wind directions.
Hypocrites, sycophants, bootlickers!!
Root them out ASAP
Force them to work in the private sector.
but… but… working in the real world, for burros, would be hell! 🙂
In the UK we have Ed Miliband in charge of all this. There are few things thicker than him, our esteemed Foreign Secretary possibly being one of them.
The take for Bald and Golden eagles should be zero. Wind and solar do not work, they are expensive, they are an end of life nightmare, they disrupt the grid, they are ugly and we can’t rely on them. The loss of even one eagle is too high a price to pay for worthless wind and solar.
but… but… the wind and sunlight are free! /s
We have to ban guns because 1 child killed is one too many.
Should not the same logic apply to eagles and whales and other life forms enjoying the warming weather?
Note: We do need to address the irrational violence and killings, but banning guns only means some novel means will be used instead.
If only we could come up with another way to generate electricity…
Put a generator on your bicycle and start pedaling.
There should be no “take” of Golden Eagles allowed for wind turbines. Zero. The same people who set a zero take limit on spotted owls, snail darters, and delta smelt, who are willing to put a logging industry and many Central Valley farmers out of business, somehow think it’s OK to kill golden eagles if they die a “politically correct” death, in aid of perpetuating the climate catastrophe myth and, ultimately, the deindustrialization of the western world.
If you simply must build a wind farm, build it so that birds cannot reach your spinning blades. Hire some engineers, you self-righteous twits.
Of course. Normally they would cheer until the decline is noticed, then turn around, blame the result on sky falling because the peasants don’t buy indulgencies and demand to build more bird-mills. Anyone pointing out the obvious could be simply ignored by The Good And Great.
It’s the standard modus operandi in such cases. E.g. https://mises.org/mises-daily/revolution-was
It’s just that right now is a bad time for those circus tricks as the real powers decided to curb this particular nonsense before they lack physical defenses worth a damn.
Correction:
“Anyone pointing out the obvious” would be labelled a denier and silenced.
“Two new studies imply the Golden Eagle cannot survive more wind turbines”
They do not imply that, and certainly do not say it. The first paper actually observed eagles and their cause of death. They reported:
Just two deaths out of 175, much less than shooting, poisoning or electrocution.
The second paper had no data on eagles at all but just data based on modelling geometry, with assumptions about propensity to avoid turbines etc. And David quotes the conclusion:
“Anthropogenic mortality is the primary cause of death in adult Golden Eagles and recent trends indicate their population may be declining. If the current rate of growth of the wind energy industry continues, it could have conservation implications for Golden Eagle and other raptor populations.”
Pretty iffy, but far short of saying they can’t survive.
Aha Nick, now you’re a modelling critic? I am truly impressed.
Maybe the effort counting real numbers (dead and alive eagles) and modelling with it a trend is iffy for you while relying on sketchy laboratory experiments that neither can be reproduced nor observed in real life is the holy grail.
I wouldn’t try to nitpick, a population decline from 80000 down to 30000 is a worrying trend. May I recommend some literature regarding technical analysis from the stock market? A loss of 63,5% rings more than just alarm bells…
“80000 down to 30000″
Those are David Wojick’s numbers. He doesn’t give a source. The first paper he cites says:
“Population size in the coterminous western United States has averaged ~31,800 individuals for several decades”
The second paper says:
“The golden eagle population in the western U.S. has remained stable for several decades (1968–2016; Millsap et al., 2013, Millsap et al., 2022), a period which includes the initial influx of wind turbines in the US (c. 1998) followed by slow growth until 2006, but also a period of significant increase in wind power from 2007 to 2016 (Wiser and Bolinger, 2019).”
The claimed stability is highly controversial.
Nick, The first paper says “…leading forms of take over all age classes were shooting (~670 per year), collisions (~611), electrocutions (~506), and poisoning (~427).”
So “collisions” (a misnomer) with wind blades killed around 25% plus some electrocutions may be wind related. FWS has actual data but it is secret.
Wind is the one that is planned to go way up and the death total is already more than the median estimated allowable take. The point is simple.
The 80,000 is from Wikipedia.
“So “collisions” (a misnomer) with wind blades killed around 25%”
That is from the abstract, where it does not say “collisions” meant “collisions with wind blades. In fact the observations from which these numbers are extrapolated said:
“The observed causes of death were starvation and emaciation (N = 37), shooting (N = 16), collisions (N = 16; five with vehicles, two with wind turbines, two with power lines, one with a train, and six undetermined)…”
IOW 1/8 of collisions were with wind blades. So not 25%, but 3%.
Good point Nick, my mistake. I find it amusing the being hit by a car, train or blade is termed a collision. Collision suggests both parties are responsible which is not the case. If I get run over crossing the street I did not collide with the car. It hit me.
Other studies find much higher wind-kill rates but this is all beside the point. If the kill rate is at the likely allowable then we cannot have it increase which more wind will do.
The real problem is lack of transparency from the wind farm owners. There is absolutely no reason that kill rates of all species can’t be tallied and provided. Carcasses can be counted. Predation will obviously remove some carcasses, but that can be estimated.
There is no need to perform a model derived number. The data should be public and available to all. This will also allow determination of areas that have low kill rates and could sustain more windmills. Likewise, areas with high kill rates can be identified and mitigated.
The windmill owners obviously have no incentive to perform the data gathering. It would expose them to a large liability.
Wind farms have to hold USFWS permits and report the numbers killed.
Yes but that data is secret.
https://www.cfact.org/2025/04/02/the-feds-are-hiding-the-eagle-death-data/
They do not report the number killed just the number found killed which is likely just a relatively small fraction of the number killed. The permit says they have to shoot for 34%.
Yeah after waiting a week while coyotes, foxes, racoons, etc. destroy evidence. This a perfect problem for AI and video cameras to solve. Think traffic cameras.
175 that were tagged is a subset of the population.
So what causes starvation and emaciation? It is not at least possibly the the disruption of the ecology and habitat of the eagles might be a contributing factor?
Before you go on and on about specific details, you absolutely have to include the power line, which would not be there were it not for the obscenities built there and electrocution, and some credibility that some of the poisons would not be present were it not for the construction of those obscenities.
You are the acme of cherry picking and nonsensical arguments.
How does an eagle die from lead poisoning? Have these people ever been outside? Outside is huge and most of it isn’t hunted. I question all of these studies, they are far too political.
Good for you. Skeptics are renown for asking questions.
“Have these people ever been outside?”
Of course they have. They GPS tagged the eagles, tracked down the copses and did autopsies. The presence of lead is easy to establish with certainty.
Shotgun pellets?
So 1% are from wind farm collisions. And yet no one here is keen to ban guns or motor vehicles. Funny that.
Starvation and emaciation along with accidents and disease are life cycle deaths that, in the absence of humans, are balanced by births. That’s roughly half of the known deaths. The shooting and poisoning are already crimes, so enforce the law and we’re down to 2 out of 40 remaining deaths, so not as insignificant as you make it. Maybe some of the electrocution deaths and power line and vehicle collisions are because of windmills too. And if the study was done in a large area with few windmills then I’d expect that cause of death to be low.
We don’t know how many of the 49 unknown cause deaths might have been due to windmills, so your using the 175 number is pure spin.
Analysis of the PostStrengths
Weaknesses
Credibility Assessment
Study Credibility: The Biological Conservation study appears credible, given its peer-reviewed status and use of a collision risk model. However, its estimates have high uncertainty, and its conclusions are cautious, warning of potential rather than certain population declines. The post’s failure to name the second study reduces the ability to verify its claims fully.
Data Transparency: The post’s claim that FWS hides eagle mortality data aligns with other sources noting restricted access to such information, lending some plausibility. However, it does not acknowledge efforts by wind companies like PacifiCorp to mitigate deaths (e.g., retrofitting power poles, testing blade painting) or the existence of incidental take permits that legally allow limited eagle deaths.
Contextual Gaps: The post does not compare wind turbine mortality to other anthropogenic threats to Golden Eagles, such as lead poisoning, electrocution, or habitat loss, which are significant. It also ignores innovations like bladeless turbines or advanced detection systems that could reduce future impacts.
Because I read the article, I didn’t need to read the AI’s summary of the article, which was almost as long. I read it anyway. The next time you ask your favorite AI engine to summarize an article for you, ask it to provide a TL:DR.
you made a very good point. I’ll do it next time
My target length is 600 words so the analysis is necessarily brief. The WUWT slurs are ad hominem arguments.
A now-classic bogus gotcha along the lines of «Aha! Goering once said 2×2=4 too!» would save you all this typing/formatting, without looking significantly less, ahem, credible.
JK – your comment mentions that Wattsupwiththat is a biased website – Yet at the same Skeptical Science is rated as highly credible in spite of numerous studies published on their site that are junk science and borderline academic fraud. Skeptical Science is egregiously bad on all the commentary on renewables, yet gets high ratings for accuracy.
Critical ExaminationThe post’s central claim—that Golden Eagles face a dire threat from wind turbines—is grounded in real concerns but overstated. The Biological Conservation study suggests a potential risk to Golden Eagle populations if wind energy expands unchecked, but it does not conclude that the species “cannot survive” more turbines. The high uncertainty in mortality estimates (e.g., 72–877 deaths in 2024) indicates the need for further research rather than immediate bans on turbine construction.
The post’s call for halting new permits and shutting down existing turbines is disproportionate, given the study’s cautious language and the existence of mitigation strategies. For example, the Altamont Pass wind farm in California reduced eagle deaths by replacing older, smaller turbines with fewer, taller, more efficient ones and installing IdentiFlight systems to stop turbines when eagles approach. Similar measures could be scaled up elsewhere.
The post also sidesteps the broader context of energy policy. Wind energy is a key component of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which the National Audubon Society notes could shrink Golden Eagle breeding ranges by 40% due to climate change. Balancing eagle conservation with renewable energy development requires nuanced solutions, not outright rejection of wind power.
Finally, the post’s reliance on a single study and vague reference to another, combined with its alarmist tone, suggests an intent to undermine wind energy rather than objectively assess the issue. The lack of engagement with mitigation strategies or comparative threats to eagles (e.g., 40% of Golden Eagle deaths in Wyoming attributed to turbines, but other causes like lead poisoning remain significant) weakens its analytical rigor.
ConclusionThe Watts Up With That? post raises a valid concern about Golden Eagle mortality from wind turbines, supported by a peer-reviewed study, but its conclusions are exaggerated and biased. The Biological Conservation study indicates potential conservation risks, not imminent extinction, and its estimates are uncertain. The post’s call for halting all new turbines and shutting down existing ones is not supported by the evidence and ignores mitigation strategies that have proven effective. Its failure to engage with counterarguments or alternative solutions, combined with the site’s history of renewable energy skepticism, suggests an agenda-driven narrative.
For a balanced perspective, further research into turbine mitigation technologies, comparative eagle mortality causes, and transparent FWS data is needed. Policymakers should prioritize rigorous NEPA assessments and enforce BGEPA limits while exploring ways to reconcile renewable energy goals with wildlife conservation.
Is this ChatGPT? I liked the Copilot summary better. More friendly, less presumptuous, fewer straw man arguments. But again: a TL:DR would be nice.
Excuse my ignorance but what is a TL:DR?
TL:DR = Too Long, Didn’t Read. Internet slang.
But as others point out, conciseness in language to facilitate communications is not needed as long as they get it.
that’s from grok, which seems to be very arrogant and annoying. Must be because of its training set from x.
“its conclusions are exaggerated and biased”
uh, yuh, like Audubon: “the National Audubon Society notes could shrink Golden Eagle breeding ranges by 40% due to climate change”
For starters, few here believe we (and the planet and its wildlife) have a problem with climate change. And Audubon’s use of the word “could” is a red flag as its used to make all sorts of crazy claims about what COULD happen.
I could win a $1B prize by buying a Mega Millions ticket.
How, given the earth is greening due to CO2 promoting plant growth, does it shrink the breeding ranges by 40% due to “climate change.”
I’ve written to the RSPB here in the UK about this a few times now and they are just not interested, and same with the impact of swathes of solar panels smothering wildlife habitats. They even told me that the latter would be beneficial to birdlife. They should hang their heads in shame, i am so angry!
but… but… we’re gonna need tens of thousands more magical wind machines to save the planet! we’ll just have to sacrifice the eagles! /s
But wait until the first spotted owl is sliced and diced by one of these obscenities.
It won’t make a splash, just like “save the whales” went silent when carcasses washed ashore at offshore sites.
Last time I read about them, they’re doing fine in heavily logged forests. 🙂
Years ago when spotted owls were getting headlines as an excuse to shut down the timber industry in the Northwest, I saw a picture of a pair nesting in a broken Walmart sign.
It was merely the “training bra” for activists like Gretta.
Basically the green religion is based on in order to save the planet we must destroy it.
Just a question: What will be the kill rate on humans when UK achieves Net Zero?
Maybe this needs to expand beyond wildlife.
Bald eagles primary food source is fish, thus primary habitat is near lakes, rivers which is the eastern US.
Golden eagls primary food source is rabits, rodents, prairie dogs and its habitat is mostly the central/western US, which is the primary area for wind farms.
There are as many bald eagles in the PNW as anywhere else, their primary food source is whatever they can find. The largest grouping in Prince Rupert of these birds was at the dump.
https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/apres-la-mort-dun-aigle-royal-la-justice-ordonne-larret-dun-parc-eolien-dans-lherault-ba605342-153e-11f0-9759-9654df6b878b
Judge closed windturbine site in France after a collusion killing a European Golden Eagle and 160 other protected birds and fined 500.000 Euro.
Story tip:
https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/apres-la-mort-dun-aigle-royal-la-justice-ordonne-larret-dun-parc-eolien-dans-lherault-ba605342-153e-11f0-9759-9654df6b878b
Judge closes windturbine site after a collusion killing a European Golden Eagle and 160 other protected birds.
The Golden Eagle.
Gone with the Wind.
Hold wind and solar to the same standard as the oil, gas and mining industries. The fines and lawsuits would bankrupt these industries. Problem solved.
Given subsidies, more likely bankrupt governments/countries.
Interesting subject, I find it curious that enviro’s such as the Sierra Club
are not involved with the obvious impact of wind turbines on raptors. I’ve watched these
enviro’s legal involvement over the years which is said to generate billions every year
for them focus on impacts of forest management and mineral production on wildlife.
They never have to prove anything they just throw a bunch of mud at a wall so to
speak and see what sticks. It seems to be centered on technicalities.
The Altamont Pass wind farm established the impact of wind towers on raptors decades ago but nothing from the enviros about off shore wind and regular wind farms impacts on wildlife. I just don’t see the golden eagles like I did before the wind farms were built. I used to see them on the road
kill carcass’s along the roads and they also would hunt behind the hay swather and along the
cut edges for fawns they would then kill and eat. The wildlife agency’s now pick up the road kill
since the grizzly bear recovery started which could have had an effect. The study’s cited
in this piece brings up a point about agency’s and their “studies”. The wolverine is often cited
as a reason to stop a forest management project in the N Rockies. I’ve learned some things
regarding wolverines over the years that I’ve shared with some of the agency guys
that they had no clue about. When the beetle kill hit we had a logger come in and clean up
around the homestead which sits on a meadow bordering timber ground. We let the
slash piles dry for a few years before burning. During that time a large number of rabbits
moved into those pile and a pair of wolverines moved in and started hunting these piles at night,
They had several litters then moved on when the food supply dried up. My guess is if they
want some wolverines in an area they might leave some of their slash piles..or fly in some road
kill..
I graduated from Michigan State. There is no way I want to encourage wolverines (aka skunk bears).
;-))