State wildlife officials removed a 1-month-old baby eagle from its nest at Norfolk Botanical Garden on Thursday when they discovered a potentially life-threatening growth on its bill.
After biopsies were taken from the mass, the eaglet was transported to a wildlife rehabilitation center near Waynesboro for treatment.
Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries veterinarian Jonathan Sleeman said the diagnosis is uncertain, adding that the growth could be a tumor, avian pox or a bacterial or other infection.
“I’ve not seen something as large as this before,” Sleeman said.
It’s been a rough mating season for the eagle pair, which lost four eggs before this eaglet’s birth on April 27.
The couple abandoned two eggs early in the breeding season when a young female eagle disrupted the nest. Two more eggs were laid, but were broken and lost when something startled the nesting female.
Reese Lukei Jr., research associate with the Center for Conservation Biology at the College of William & Mary, said it’s too late in the breeding season for more offspring.
The growth was detected late last week from footage from a closed-circuit video camera trained on the nest. It was confirmed when an amateur photographer captured a telling picture on Sunday.
It’s on the left side of the eaglet’s mandible and appeared to be fast-growing, Lukei said.
Early Thursday, professional tree climbers retrieved the 2-pound eaglet from the nest and lowered it to the ground in a pouch. Mom and dad circled a good distance overhead.
The baby eagle was examined by Sleeman and state wildlife biologist Stephen Living. Tissue and blood samples were taken at the scene.
Sleeman said the mass was ulcerated and had grown so large that it blocked one nostril and had started to deform the eaglet’s beak. He said the baby was already having trouble breathing and that the growth soon would interfere with eating.
Experts originally suspected avian pox, a potentially fatal viral disease spread through mosquitoes and from bird to bird but poses no human health hazard.
While avian pox has not been ruled out, Sleeman said it’s not likely because this mass appears to be more aggressive.
Because surgery is possible, the eaglet will probably not be returned to the nest because of the lengthiness of recovery, Living said.
If all goes well, it will be reintroduced to the wild.
The eagle pair has made the garden home for the last five years, so there’s no reason to believe they’ll leave now, Lukei said.
Living said the eagle s “will definitely be stressed” by their baby’s removal but that they’ve proven to be resilient when it comes to their offspring. He urged eagle fans to not view the loss from a human experience. “This is distressing, but this pair has been through a lot,” Living said.
Debbie Messina, (757) 446-2588, debbie.messina@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Norfolk Eaglet
Just because an eaglet is handled by a human does NOT mean it cannot be released back into the wild. This species was almost wiped off the face of the earth because of humans. I for one am thankful they are attempting to help this eaglet. Anyone who has watched the cam this season knows what an extremely hard time this adult pair has had trying to produce just one eaglet. It causes false comfort to hear of so many breeding pairs reproducing - when in fact of all eaglets born each year only fifty percent will live through their first year of life. I believe in natural selection also - in species that are much more abundant than Bald Eagles. I'm sure that if it is determined that this eaglet will not survive they will take care of him humanly. I pray he does well, survives, and is able to be released. Many thanks to NBG, DGIF, and WVEC!
Do the right thing
Leaving this eaglet in its nest does not translate into allowing nature to take its course. Considering the extreme amount of human interference in this and other species' daily lives, it is inappropriate to apply a "survival of the fittest" philosophy in such less-than-natural conditions. This mating pair has endured noise pollution, habitat alteration/loss, contaminated prey and a whole laundry list of other human-induced obstacles to survival. We can at least try to offset our negative interference with a positive action, even if the entries in our positive column are woefully inadequate. Furthermore, if this individual eaglet's immune system is stressed, it is likely due to anthropogenic factors, not natural selection. Hurray for the folks at NBG and VDGIF for trying to do something right in the face of all the wrongs that have been done, and are continuing to be done, to this species. Good luck, eaglet.
Norfolk Botanical Garden eaglet removed from nest
What is it that makes "us" (humans) feel the need to interfere with wildlife? Endangered, or not, human interference in the eaglet's growth and up-bringing cannot be good for the bird, or for the preservation of the species. Ever hear of "natural selection"? Even if the tumor can be successfully treated and/or removed, it's handling by humans has pretty much doomed it to a life in a zoo or aviary. Even if released back into the wild, who's to say that it's (current) disease hasn't affected it's DNA? Are we so intent on preserving a species that we would risk the gene pool being corrupted? Would that really be better?
Nature has a way of perpetuating species. Direct human interference, regardless of intention, doesn't always help a species survive. The eaglet's "parents" have probably already given up this one for lost. The same way that they did with the previous two attempts. YES, we should be custodians to nature, but not to the point of interference.
David Hatfield
Norfolk, Virginia