It has been 47 years since the endangered species act was implemented. In that time, many species have recovered to at or above normal carrying capacity. The continued existence of these species on the list are unnecessary and can be a burden on society. It is my belief that the removal of such species is more to do with job protection then it is actually protecting the species. I dealt with bald eagle habitat years ago. When reviewing the data I noted that the maps indicated full carrying capacity. The biologist agreed, but stated they did not have money to conduct any survey. Yet, I was spending hundreds of dollars to get my project rubber stamped. As of yet, 20 years later, they still have not done a survey and most of the restrictions and studies are still in place. I realized then that if the biologist in charge of that department did a survey, their jobs would become endangered. So, just carryon with no changes and everything is good. There is not way those in charge of the monitoring will every suggest any changes in status, as it would spell the doom of their job. Yet, the refusal to do so creates a situation that points to a failure on their part. So which is it, have restrictions, after 47 years made a difference, or have they not?