Should there be a compensation scheme for eagle/kite attacks

Bottle_of_Smoke

Poisoned eagle found today:

Protected bird dies after poisoning

One of Ireland's rarest protected birds of prey has been discovered poisoned.
The Golden Eagle was found outside the village of Killeter, west Tyrone, last month.

Police were called in after the male raptor was poisoned by carbofuran, which has been banned in the UK since 2001.

RSPB Northern Ireland director Dr James Robinson said: "Words cannot express our disgust at this terrible and careless act."

The bird was collected as a chick from the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, in June this year and reared and released in Glenveagh National Park, Co Donegal, by the Golden Eagle Trust as part of an ongoing project to restore golden eagles in the Republic of Ireland.

It was fitted with a satellite transmitter before it was released in August. Tracking showed the eagle spent several weeks around the release area before wandering down to Killeter Forest in Tyrone, where it has been since mid-October.

Read the rest of the article: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/protected-bird-dies-after-poisoning-15024273.html#ixzz17YSeFKaY

I find this kind of thing revolting. The government actually doing something great and re-introducing a locally extinct wonderful creature.

Obviously some farmers feel their animals are more important than the birds and cannot be reasoned with. I'm not a farmer so I'm not going to try and moralise about that.

So to prevent this kind of attack should the two governments introduce a scheme whereby farmers get compensated if their animals are attacked by reintroduced eagles or kites. I think that is fair - their farm model has evolved in the absence of these birds of prey so they could potentially lose out because of them.

Vets could (probably?) confirm the attacks and the tourism these animals could potentially bring in if successful would cover the costs.

Have the Green Parties from each either side of the border ever commented(other than condemnation) on the situation?

later12

Well the question is worth asking - why did the bird go extinct in the region to begin with?

If, for example, farmers are the cause, maybe someone should have considered that farmers, their crops and their animals, are still knocking about and the two cannot peacefully co-exist.

Bottle_of_Smoke

later10 wrote: »

Well the question is worth asking - why did the bird go extinct in the region to begin with?

If, for example, farmers are the cause, maybe someone should have considered that farmers, their crops and their animals, are still knocking about and the two cannot peacefully co-exist.

From what I've heard the damage they do to herds is minimal and in some cases they are beneficial because crows avoid eagle territory.

If the revenue they attracted through wildlife tourism outweighed compensation for farmers wouldn't it be better to have both?

later12

Why would crows be a problem, apart from barley growers (who often aren't effected by animal deaths, obviously)

How much is this revenue worth? I always believed the attraction was pretty tiny, actually.

oppenheimer1

Isn't Tyrone in the UK? Killing an endangered animal is an offence in the republic afaik.

Bottle_of_Smoke

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Isn't Tyrone in the UK? Killing an endangered animal is an offence in the republic afaik.

Endangered birds of prey do not recognise international borders. Republican scum that they are.

It is an offence to kill them in both jurisdictions but obviously virtually impossible to police.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

Well the question is worth asking - why did the bird go extinct in the region to begin with?

Ever been to the Dead Zoo?

later10 wrote: »

If, for example, farmers are the cause, maybe someone should have considered that farmers, their crops and their animals, are still knocking about and the two cannot peacefully co-exist.

The two can peacefully co-exist - it requires either an appreciation of the greater communal good by the individual farmer, or compensation. They seem to manage in Scotland, after all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Focalbhach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I find this kind of thing revolting.

Seconded.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So to prevent this kind of attack should the two governments introduce a scheme whereby farmers get compensated if their animals are attacked by reintroduced eagles or kites.

I had an idea that there was talk of some sort of compensation scheme a while back - the same thing was happening in Kerry with sea eagles being poisoned. Am open to correction on that though.

ednwireland

they were made extinct by man just in case anyone doesnt know - and very recently

the re-introduced sea eagles in kerry are meeting a similiar fate

Of all the island's bird extinctions, none was as deliberate as the eradication of the eagle in the latter half of the 19th Century. In the mid 1800s, one could have seen a dozen in a day in the mountains of Kerry, or watched them swooping after hares or grouse from Connemara to Donegal. After 50 years of persecution, with sheep ranchers and gamekeepers using rifles, traps and strychnine, and collectors vying for the eggs, the last native eagles nested above Glenveagh in 1910 and on the north Mayo cliffs in 1912. Ireland is the only country in the world to have lost its eagles in such recent times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/timeseye/birds/great.htm

interesting report from the rspb on crofters complaints that lambs were taken by sea eagles

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?print=1&a=2094

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So to prevent this kind of attack should the two governments introduce a scheme whereby farmers get compensated if their animals are attacked by reintroduced eagles or kites.

The question here is whether or not this is actually a problem, or just old-school belligerant farmers acting out of ignorance.

Do we know what danger (if any) eagles and kites pose to livestock?

Laminations

seamus wrote: »

The question here is whether or not this is actually a problem, or just old-school belligerant farmers acting out of ignorance.

Do we know what danger (if any) eagles and kites pose to livestock?

Little if any. They are being poisoned out of ignorance. If you visit the excellent birds of prey/ falconry display at the foot of the entrance to the Aillwee caves they'll tell you all about the problems being faced for the reintroduction.

ednwireland wrote: »

interesting report from the rspb on crofters complaints that lambs were taken by sea eagles

http://www.birdguides.com/webzine/article.asp?print=1&a=2094

^^^ This

goose2005

Farmers want compensation for any old crap. For every eagle found dead, take 50 euro off every Donegal farmer's single farm payment. They know who's poisoning the birds and will put pressure on him.

johngalway

goose2005 wrote: »

Farmers want compensation for any old crap. For every eagle found dead, take 50 euro off every Donegal farmer's single farm payment. They know who's poisoning the birds and will put pressure on him.

If I break a red light or speed in your part of Ireland, I guess all other car owners locally should have their road tax put up in line with my fine.

Don't know what impact, if any, eagles have on lambs.

But, a compensation scheme would be unworkable IMO, and just more red tape for the valuable hard working people in the Dept. I imagine some larger BOP could carry something as small as a lamb off elsewhere. How do you prove you own a newly born unbranded lamb? How do you prove the lamb was alive at the time? No one is with their stock 24/7.

On another point, some site members have previously said that some larger BOP can take foxes, as well as crows, so they are an asset to farming. OK, I won't dispute that point. However, a lamb is a lot smaller and certainly defenseless compared to a fox, no? So they are a threat to foxes, but not lambs

I'm not arguing either side, just raising the points, some of which don't make sense.

Bottle_of_Smoke

johngalway wrote: »

If I break a red light or speed in your part of Ireland, I guess all other car owners locally should have their road tax put up in line with my fine.

Don't know what impact, if any, eagles have on lambs.

But, a compensation scheme would be unworkable IMO, and just more red tape for the valuable hard working people in the Dept. I imagine some larger BOP could carry something as small as a lamb off elsewhere. How do you prove you own a newly born unbranded lamb? How do you prove the lamb was alive at the time? No one is with their stock 24/7.

On another point, some site members have previously said that some larger BOP can take foxes, as well as crows, so they are an asset to farming. OK, I won't dispute that point. However, a lamb is a lot smaller and certainly defenseless compared to a fox, no? So they are a threat to foxes, but not lambs

I'm not arguing either side, just raising the points, some of which don't make sense.

Yeah I mustn't have been thinking straight when I posted that. Would be impossible to compensate if the eagle carried the lamb away. Pity, because it would be great to have these animals, but I'm fairly sure they'll all be killed within the near to medium future. Almost think they should be brought back to Scotland to prevent the inevitable.

Scofflaw

johngalway wrote: »

If I break a red light or speed in your part of Ireland, I guess all other car owners locally should have their road tax put up in line with my fine.

Don't know what impact, if any, eagles have on lambs.

But, a compensation scheme would be unworkable IMO, and just more red tape for the valuable hard working people in the Dept. I imagine some larger BOP could carry something as small as a lamb off elsewhere. How do you prove you own a newly born unbranded lamb? How do you prove the lamb was alive at the time? No one is with their stock 24/7.

On another point, some site members have previously said that some larger BOP can take foxes, as well as crows, so they are an asset to farming. OK, I won't dispute that point. However, a lamb is a lot smaller and certainly defenseless compared to a fox, no? So they are a threat to foxes, but not lambs

I'm not arguing either side, just raising the points, some of which don't make sense.

The point being made by the RSPB in Scotland seems to be that while eagles can and do carry off lambs, they do so almost entirely during the lambing season, and rarely appear to carry off lambs later - despite which, claims for compensation for lambs carried off are often made for older lambs.

Eagle nest webcams?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Focalbhach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eagle nest webcams?

There's potential here - we could mount a tiny camera on the eagle's head with live feed. I'd love to see the research funding application: Eaglecam. And now that Big Brother's gone, there's a gap in the TV market so it would be both self-financing and entertaining.

I see no flaw with this plan.

Bottle_of_Smoke

goose2005 wrote: »

Farmers want compensation for any old crap. For every eagle found dead, take 50 euro off every Donegal farmer's single farm payment. They know who's poisoning the birds and will put pressure on him.

Would actually have to punish every farmer in Ireland. We can't prove where the bird was poisoned, all we know was it died in Tyrone(in the time it takes to metabolize the poison the eagle could have flown miles off)

The idea ran through my head, but its not actually fair as some local farmer might think its worth losing a few euro in payments if his lambs aren't killed. And imagine the situation if people in the republic lost payments because someone in the NI counties killed the birds. Not a chance would a government party risk pissing the IFA off that much

johngalway

Scofflaw wrote: »

The point being made by the RSPB in Scotland seems to be that while eagles can and do carry off lambs, they do so almost entirely during the lambing season, and rarely appear to carry off lambs later - despite which, claims for compensation for lambs carried off are often made for older lambs.

Eagle nest webcams?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Possibly, though the burden to prove who owns the young unbranded lamb is still practically impossible to carry out. To me, as a hill sheep farmer, the cost/loss is still there. As the ewe still needs care all winter which can include, dipping, dosing, mineral & vit dose/bolus, feed - be that grass/rations/other, plus the biggest and often overlooked input, the shepherds time. Of course, the older lamb has more costs involved as it's care of another animal separate to it's own ewe.

My aim is to ensure the highest % of my ewes get into lamb firstly, then ensure adequate care levels over the Winter/Spring to bring forward the highest lamb crop % and so it goes on from there to bring the highest % again to market.

Different times of year demand different levels of work, some normal keeping the outfit ticking over, and other times it can be pretty demanding, so extra problems aren't welcome. Once the lamb is killed that's a loss right there, it's not like other types of work where maybe something can be recovered.

Scofflaw

johngalway wrote: »

Possibly, though the burden to prove who owns the young unbranded lamb is still practically impossible to carry out. To me, as a hill sheep farmer, the cost/loss is still there. As the ewe still needs care all winter which can include, dipping, dosing, mineral & vit dose/bolus, feed - be that grass/rations/other, plus the biggest and often overlooked input, the shepherds time. Of course, the older lamb has more costs involved as it's care of another animal separate to it's own ewe.

My aim is to ensure the highest % of my ewes get into lamb firstly, then ensure adequate care levels over the Winter/Spring to bring forward the highest lamb crop % and so it goes on from there to bring the highest % again to market.

Different times of year demand different levels of work, some normal keeping the outfit ticking over, and other times it can be pretty demanding, so extra problems aren't welcome. Once the lamb is killed that's a loss right there, it's not like other types of work where maybe something can be recovered.

Sure - that's why I have no objection to compensation schemes. If it comes to it, I wouldn't have any objection to a single compensation payment for risk rather than loss - have an eagle living in the area, receive the payment, whether or not you actually lose a lamb. You could adjust that for known predation patterns (proximity to nesting sites, eagle diet) and the number of eagles, and by upping it a small amount over the actual risk the farmer gains a small financial incentive in the eagle's wellbeing - someone poisons an eagle, everyone loses some money. Still an incentive for farmers to protect their lambs, no incentive to make a false claim or have to try to prove the unprovable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ever been to the Dead Zoo?

Yes, indeed. And I have a feeling that, unfortunately that may be the environment to which these birds are best suited, in Ireland at least.

The two can peacefully co-exist - it requires either an appreciation of the greater communal good by the individual farmer, or compensation. They seem to manage in Scotland, after all.

I'm not against compensation, but the question must be raised - what's the point of having these birds here anyway?
Secondly, communal spirit? a good farmer is a business man. A person who expects a farmer to engage in communal spirit and overlook lamb mortality issues is not living in the real world.

I would hazard a guess that it works in Scotland firstly because the highland landscape is far more remote and secondly there are a lot less sheep farmers per hectare but grazing a lot more sheep.

later12

Laminations wrote: »

Little if any. They are being poisoned out of ignorance. If you visit the excellent birds of prey/ falconry display at the foot of the entrance to the Aillwee caves they'll tell you all about the problems being faced for the reintroduction.

Hmmm.
Do you really think that they, or the SNH report, are unbiased parties?

I'm not saying they're wrong. In fact, the SNH report itself seems to reflect what one's common sense would itself suggest.
However you should always be at least a little bit wary of reports on the effects of conservation on farmers by parties whose role is conservation.

As for falconers and birds of prey experts' own opinions, well that should be obvious.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - that's why I have no objection to compensation schemes. If it comes to it, I wouldn't have any objection to a single compensation payment for risk rather than loss - have an eagle living in the area, receive the payment, whether or not you actually lose a lamb. You could adjust that for known predation patterns (proximity to nesting sites, eagle diet) and the number of eagles, and by upping it a small amount over the actual risk the farmer gains a small financial incentive in the eagle's wellbeing - someone poisons an eagle, everyone loses some money. Still an incentive for farmers to protect their lambs, no incentive to make a false claim or have to try to prove the unprovable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is a very interesting concept. Not sure how it would pan out in practice but think it would be worthwhile to take the chance seeing as the people currently killing the eagles aren't going to be reasoned with.

Valmont

I think the question we need to ask ourselves is why farmers in other places with birds of prey can do without poison. Goodness, I met a farmer in Slovakia, seemed to do grand for himself, and he had brown bears and wolves to worry about. Why is it the farmers in Ireland make a big fuss out of a few Golden Eagles? Also, the golden eagles we have here are significantly smaller than their North American counterparts.

These farmers using poison are just lazy to be honest. In Scotland they make do just fine with setting snares and shooting the foxes. Some hard and fast rules need to be laid down imo otherwise this will just keep happening. How many birds have been poisoned now? How many prosecutions? Surely with the satellite trackers they could have a good idea where the bird picked up the poison?

jpb1974

Why would crows be a problem, apart from barley growers (who often aren't effected by animal deaths, obviously)

Apparently they're right proper little See You Next Tuesday's. (I was told this by a farmer a few months ago).

They prey on ill, weak and smaller stock.. usually sheep. If a sheep fell ill or weak for whatever reason they'll come down and start pecking at it's eyes and the like until the point the that sheep kicks the bucket and then they feast.

And for this reason amongst others - Farmers don't like crows.

Corsendonk

jpb1974 wrote: »

Apparently they're right proper little See You Next Tuesday's. (I was told this by a farmer a few months ago).

They prey on ill, weak and smaller stock.. usually sheep. If a sheep fell ill or weak for whatever reason they'll come down and start pecking at it's eyes and the like until the point the that sheep kicks the bucket and then they feast.

A for this reason amongst others - Farmers don't like crows.

Magpies in particular, I have heard a number of stories from hunters of finding lambs with their eyes pecked out by magpies.

What type of poison is used to kill these birds? Why can't the state impose a licence for commercial use of poisons? My Dad use to grow tomatoes as a commercial grower and every year he had to apply to the Garda for a explosive licence(fertiliser). At least then you have a register of people with the means to poison.

jpb1974

Yup, the same farmer specifically mentioned Magpies too.

later12

jpb1974 wrote: »

later10 wrote:

Why would crows be a problem, apart from barley growers (who often aren't effected by animal deaths, obviously)

Apparently they're right proper little See You Next Tuesday's. (I was told this by a farmer a few months ago).

They prey on ill, weak and smaller stock.. usually sheep. If a sheep fell ill or weak for whatever reason they'll come down and start pecking at it's eyes and the like until the point the that sheep kicks the bucket and then they feast.

And for this reason amongst others - Farmers don't like crows.

Corsendonk wrote:

Magpies in particular, I have heard a number of stories from hunters of finding lambs with their eyes pecked out by magpies.

This has nothing to do with healthy animals. Birds - usually magpies, do indeed prey on lambs' eyes - but only when the animal is dead or dying. If a farmer has a problem with it, it's from a humane point of view. I have heard reports of ravens actively attacking baby lambs, but ravens are not nearly common enough in Ireland to make the presence of this eagle an overall advantage to the farmer.

I would pose the question of what serious benefit are these birds to the Irish countryside? And surely these birds went extinct in the first place because they were not seen as valuable or beneficial - perhaps indeed, harmful - and therefore were routinely hunted to the same end as foxes are today.

Do we really need to start introducing species that have already failed to survive here? Why not go one step further and introduce conservation programs to breed pandas, ant eaters, llamas or other relatively pointless creatures into the Irish countryside!

Scofflaw

Of what value is caring for the elderly, given they're no longer economically useful, and would have died quite naturally if they weren't supported at a cost to working people?

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of what value is caring for the elderly, given they're no longer economically useful, and would have died quite naturally if they weren't supported at a cost to working people?

cordially,
Scofflaw

They're taxpayers - through their pensions, VAT and other taxes as well as being able to give a valid contribution to social and sometimes political life. So they are, indeed, very often economically useful.

Having said that, I am not supporting a case whereby everybody must be economically useful in order to be supported financially or otherwise by the state - even in times where fiscal austerity is of such dire necessity.

Rather, I think we need to maintain a healthy level of discrimation.
I have no problems with discriminating positively in favour of humans at the expense of animals. I like my beef barely dead, but the live version doesn't interest me at all to be honest. Furthermore, we ought to be pragmatic in our approach to these birds, and realise that if conservation is a part of our agenda then perhaps we ought to maintain an eye on what we are already aiming to conserve in the Irish countryside and not start introducing new species who have, perhaps, gone extinct here for very good reasons.

Raging_Ninja

I don't advocate breaking laws or anything like that, but I feel I must point that we wiped them out the first time round for a reason. They are predators and are known to kill young livestock (lambs and the like).

Corsendonk

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

I don't advocate breaking laws or anything like that, but I feel I must point that we wiped them out the first time round for a reason. They are predators and are known to kill young livestock (lambs and the like).

Why don't we wipe out dogs then on that logic? Certainly more damage caused by dogs let loose among sheep.

later12

Corsendonk wrote: »

Why don't we wipe out dogs then on that logic? Certainly more damage caused by dogs let loose among sheep.

It is arguable that dogs have an overall beneficial effect on rural households and farm businesses, not just as companion or working animals, but indeed as guard dogs protecting rural farms from theft or unlawful trespass.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

They're taxpayers - through their pensions, VAT and other taxes as well as being able to give a valid contribution to social and sometimes political life. So they are, indeed, very often economically useful.

Having said that, I am not supporting a case whereby everybody must be economically useful in order to be supported financially or otherwise by the state - even in times where fiscal austerity is of such dire necessity.

Rather, I think we need to maintain a healthy level of discrimation.
I have no problems with discriminating positively in favour of humans at the expense of animals. I like my beef barely dead, but the live version doesn't interest me at all to be honest. Furthermore, we ought to be pragmatic in our approach to these birds, and realise that if conservation is a part of our agenda then perhaps we ought to maintain an eye on what we are already aiming to conserve in the Irish countryside and not start introducing new species who have, perhaps, gone extinct here for very good reasons.

Their pension funds would still exist if they died. Pensioners don't spend much anyway, just the necessities once they reach that age! As for social and political, well they hardly leave their homes do they? That's why we're constantly being reminded to go check on them.

By the way humans are not always rational creatures, eagles did not go extinct for "good reasons" in Ireland. They went extinct because some people in this country are extremely stupid. They are also not a new species, they are an old species that we wiped out. Apex predators are actually very important in the food chain. Farmers might not feel the need to lace the land with poison if we had a few more apex predators keeping foxes and crows in check.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/ulster-eagles-cause-crow-attacks-on-lambs-to-decline-14969331.html

Farmers in Co Donegal, where the eagles are finally flying wild, have noticed a decline in the number of attacks by local hooded grey crows on newborn lambs.

The arrival of the golden eagles, after an absence of more than 100 years, has scared off the huge number of grey crows, a known local scourge as they attack young lambs, according to a new report by the Golden Eagle Trust.

Raging_Ninja

Corsendonk wrote: »

Why don't we wipe out dogs then on that logic? Certainly more damage caused by dogs let loose among sheep.

The analogy is false. If a dog is caught doing that it more than likely the farmer will put it down himself with a shotgun, or get the owner to do it. I may be wrong but I also believe the owner of the dog (if it has one) is liable for damage a dog may cause.

Birds of prey on the other hand are wild predators that will do their best to kill prey regardless of whether it is livestock or not.

Like I said, I don't advocate breaking laws or anything, but you have to admit it was fairly idealistic to assume that farmers would not protect their young livestock.

Sesshoumaru

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

I don't advocate breaking laws or anything like that, but I feel I must point that we wiped them out the first time round for a reason. They are predators and are known to kill young livestock (lambs and the like).

RTE which we all pay money to support, actually produced an interesting program on the Eagles a little while ago. They interviewed Duncan Halley from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. He said Norway had started research on whether Eagles attacked livestock back in 1975. Not surprisingly they couldn't find a single instance of this happening and they've now got around 10,000 Eagles. They also interviewed a Norwegian farmer who spoke about the Eagles and how they have never attacked his lambs.

This like stories of eagles carrying away newborn humans are just ignorant myths. God it was so embarrassing when they interviewed the Norwegian ambassador to Ireland. He was shocked to learn that Irish farmers still left poison lying around on the land. He said that was something backward that they used to do back in the 40's and 50's.

later12

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Their pension funds would still exist if they died. Pensioners don't spend much anyway, just the necessities once they reach that age! As for social and political, well they hardly leave their homes do they? That's why we're constantly being reminded to go check on them.

Like I said, i don't believe in extending the same logic to human beings, personally i have no problem with this sort of discrimination.

In any event, not all pensions can be extended to the deceased person's estate, and elderly peoples' savings are usually distrubuted among family members, thereby losing their taxable potentials - anyway this is all largely irrelevant - the point was simply that elderly people can in themselves be an economic asset instead of a liability.

By the way humans are not always rational creatures, eagles did not go extinct for "good reasons" in Ireland. They went extinct because some people in this country are extremely stupid. They are also not a new species, they are an old species that we wiped out. Apex predators are actually very important in the food chain. Farmers might not feel the need to lace the land with poison if we had a few more apex predators keeping foxes and crows in check.

If they are keeping foxes and crows in check, as you say, then surely they would also be keeping chickens and lambs in check. If you believe these birds target foxes, do you then actually not believe the norwegian report saying that no lambs were injured as far as they were concerned?

This like stories of eagles carrying away newborn humans are just ignorant myths.

Yes but you'll notice that nobody here actually suggested anything like that.

Scofflaw

I don't advocate breaking laws or anything like that, but I feel I must point that we wiped them out the first time round for a reason. They are predators and are known to kill young livestock (lambs and the like).

Which, to the extent it happens, is something that needs to be addressed by compensation arrangements. However, as pointed out several times now, the extent to which it happens appears to be exaggerated - which will have been part of people wiping them out first time round.

It's also something of a fallacy in general to point to actions we took in the past as justifying similar actions taken today - after all, witch-burning, the workhouse, pogroms, all have traditional precedent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which, to the extent it happens, is something that needs to be addressed by compensation arrangements. However, as pointed out several times now, the extent to which it happens appears to be exaggerated - which will have been part of people wiping them out first time round.

How could compensation be designed so as to prevent an even further increase in the magnitude of exaggerated claims, though? How can someone prove that an eagle took his lamb?

It's also something of a fallacy in general to point to actions we took in the past as justifying similar actions taken today - after all, witch-burning, the workhouse, pogroms, all have traditional precedent.

Yes, but nobody as far as I can see is offering such a simplistic rationale. The problem is that the same motive to take that action appears to be present today - that of the eagle being alleged to be deleterious to lamb mortality rates. Nobody is saying that we should eradicate them again just 'cos we did it before.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

If they are keeping foxes and crows in check, as you say, then surely they would also be keeping chickens and lambs in check. If you believe these birds target foxes, do you then actually not believe the norwegian report saying that no lambs were injured as far as they were concerned?

Yes I do believe the Norwegian report, have you given me any fact based reason for me not to believe it? There are millions of sharks in the ocean, yet worldwide we only have a handful of attacks on humans, most not being fatal. You'd think some slow humans swimming in the ocean would be a tasty snack. However sharks simply don't see us as food and so don't hunt humans. I believe it is the same for eagles, lambs are not their natural prey, so why hunt them?

Yes, but nobody as far as I can see is offering such a simplistic rationale. The problem is that the same motive to take that action appears to be present today - that of the eagle being alleged to be deleterious to lamb mortality rates. Nobody is saying that we should eradicate them again just 'cos we did it before.

You haven't established that eagles do in fact kill lambs. You've basically offered up a lot of possibilities without providing evidence for any of them or standing behind any of those possibilities. Why don't you offer up evidence that eagles do kill lambs?

You've also ignored my point that apex predators are required for a healthy balance in nature. I mean otherwise why not wipe out all apex predators that compete for resources of economic value? Sharks eat fish, humans also eat fish. Why not wipe out sharks? Whales eat fish, humans eat fish. Why not wipe out whales? I'm sure you know whales and sharks are required for a healthy ocean?

As for economic benefits, when interviewed for the RTE program, hotel owners in Kerry said they had seen an increase in business from customers who kept asking how to see the eagles.

later12

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Yes I do believe the Norwegian report, have you given me any fact based reason for me not to believe it?

the first disclaimer I would offer here is that I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the report. I just have two problems with your reasoning

1. If these birds are not unlikely to kill lambs, or chickens, why would they be likely to behave as apex predators and, as you suggest, kill foxes?
2. Secondly, Norway is ecologically and geographically very different to Ireland - obviously. The countryside is far more remote and birds are much less likely to come into contact with farm dwellings or domestic animals

Also i have a problem with this statement
R

TE which we all pay money to support, actually produced an interesting program on the Eagles a little while ago. They interviewed Duncan Halley from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. He said Norway had started research on whether Eagles attacked livestock back in 1975. Not surprisingly they couldn't find a single instance of this happening and they've now got around 10,000 Eagles. They also interviewed a Norwegian farmer who spoke about the Eagles and how they have never attacked his lambs.

When a quick google finds this study
Economic Impact of Protected Large Carnivores on Sheep Farming in Norway.

You haven't established that eagles do in fact kill lambs. You've basically offered up a lot of possibilities without providing evidence for any of them or standing behind any of those possibilities. Why don't you offer up evidence that eagles do kill lambs?

In fact I have just done so.

However it is not my intention to prove that the sheep of Ireland are suddenly in any real or serious danger. I really don't care much about them. I just dislike one sided arguments where someone misrepresents the case in favour of such a scheme, or against such a scheme, based on opinion as opposed to factual evidence. Some statements on this thread seem more like they have sprung from sentiment and emotion rather than anything factual.

You've also ignored my point that apex predators are required for a healthy balance in nature. I mean otherwise why not wipe out all apex predators that compete for resources of economic value? Sharks eat fish, humans also eat fish. Why not wipe out sharks? Whales eat fish, humans eat fish. Why not wipe out whales? I'm sure you know whales and sharks are required for a healthy ocean?

I'm not saying we should wipe out eagles. I'm saying that they had already been wiped out here - presumably for a reason - and that such a reason has not magically disappeared. If you want to convince farmers that the interest of these birds in their livestock has suddenly vanished, please do so. Otherwise don't be surprised if history repeats itself.

Why are these eagles actually required to maintain apex order in Ireland, anyway?

As for economic benefits, when interviewed for the RTE program, hotel owners in Kerry said they had seen an increase in business from customers who kept asking how to see the eagles.

That's nice.

Focalbhach

later10 wrote: »

This has nothing to do with healthy animals. Birds - usually magpies, do indeed prey on lambs' eyes - but only when the animal is dead or dying. If a farmer has a problem with it, it's from a humane point of view. I have heard reports of ravens actively attacking baby lambs, but ravens are not nearly common enough in Ireland to make the presence of this eagle an overall advantage to the farmer.

I would pose the question of what serious benefit are these birds to the Irish countryside? And surely these birds went extinct in the first place because they were not seen as valuable or beneficial - perhaps indeed, harmful - and therefore were routinely hunted to the same end as foxes are today.

Do we really need to start introducing species that have already failed to survive here? Why not go one step further and introduce conservation programs to breed pandas, ant eaters, llamas or other relatively pointless creatures into the Irish countryside!

"Pointless" creatures? :eek:

later12

Yes, it does seem rather pointless in relation to Ireland. They don't seem to be able to peacefully co exist with farmers who apparently only seek to destroy them based on real or perceived threat to livestock, and they offer no clear benefit to Irish ecology or rural life. So what's the point?

There may be some marginal benefit to tourism, that's yet to be established to any real objective extent. If it were to be established that the revenue these birds could bring in would outweigh the likely compensatory costs to farmers, then of course it could be at least examined.

Or, for now, perhaps they ought to just stop flogging dead eagles.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

Yes, it does seem rather pointless in relation to Ireland. They don't seem to be able to peacefully co exist with farmers who apparently only seek to destroy them based on real or perceived threat to livestock, and they offer no clear benefit to Irish ecology or rural life. So what's the point?

There may be some marginal benefit to tourism, that's yet to be established to any real objective extent. If it were to be established that the revenue these birds could bring in would outweigh the likely compensatory costs to farmers, then of course it could be at least examined.

Or, for now, perhaps they ought to just stop flogging dead eagles.

I love how you phrase it, the birds are the ones who can't peacefully coexist? Nothing to do with farmers engaging in medieval practises like leaving dead carcasses on the land laced with poison. I'll just remind you these birds are natives of these lands and were here before humans arrived. They've already performed one very useful function for the study of our ecology, we now know poison is used extensively by Irish farmers. How does leaving poisoned carcasses all over the land fit in with Ireland's green image? How's that for negative marketing and an economic hit on our tourism industry.

Just out of curiosity do you just randomly form opinions and then just look for evidence to back it up afterwards? By the way nice find, university of Nebraska! I'll take my evidence from official Norwegian(not a small US study) sources thanks! Did you even read that study yourself before forming your (random) opinion? You've already stated you have no interest in sheep, you appear to have no interest in eagles, so I can't imagine you having read that study before posting. So what exactly is the point of this thread? You started of with an assumption that eagles kill lambs and whether we should have a compensation scheme in place. You can only link to some university of Nebraska study when challenged. Which by the way shows eagles as the least threat in their list of carnivores.

If you care for neither sheep nor eagles why this thread? we don't have any compensation scheme in place, so even if you're an Irish tax payer, your pocket isn't being hit. Reintroducing the eagles is also a private endeavour. So what is your interest in this topic?

Another assumption is marginal benefit to tourism? How many tourists has one bottle nose dolphin in Dingle brought here? You're not an authority on this.

Coming back to lambs though, what if they were killing a few lambs? They also kill ravens and foxes. How do you know that overall, dead lambs from eagles(I don't accept that they are preying on our lambs and you haven't offered evidence that they are in Ireland preying on lambs) is not outweighed by the lambs that lived, but that might otherwise have died from predation from foxes and ravens?

When RTE interviewed farmers in Kerry, many of them stated the fox was their major concern! One farmer explained that poison was used so extensively because some older farmers could no longer go out hunting all night for foxes, so instead they just laced dead carcasses and left them all over their land for foxes or any other random unfortunate animal to find. Do you not understand that apex predators like eagles help keep numbers of foxes and ravens in check? What natural predator does a fox or raven have now? what's to control their numbers now except poison and shotguns. The farmers that were interviewed described scenes of hunting foxes through the night to keep their lambs safe. Surely a farmers time that is spent controlling fox numbers is an economic cost? time is money and all that, why not let eagles keep fox numbers in check?

joolsveer

How can we compensate the dead eagles and hawks for the illegal actions of the humans?

Focalbhach

later10 wrote: »

Yes, it does seem rather pointless in relation to Ireland. They don't seem to be able to peacefully co exist with farmers who apparently only seek to destroy them based on real or perceived threat to livestock, and they offer no clear benefit to Irish ecology or rural life. So what's the point?

There may be some marginal benefit to tourism, that's yet to be established to any real objective extent. If it were to be established that the revenue these birds could bring in would outweigh the likely compensatory costs to farmers, then of course it could be at least examined.

Or, for now, perhaps they ought to just stop flogging dead eagles.

What Sesshoumaru said.

Do you really see this as eagle money in - eagle money out = worth of eagles? There's no question of intrinsic value?

later12

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I love how you phrase it, the birds are the ones who can't peacefully coexist? Nothing to do with farmers engaging in medieval practises like leaving dead carcasses on the land laced with poison.

Medieval? That's modern practice, and it works perfectly well. However, it's largely something done by barley some other crop farmers, and the birds are shot, so I don't really see the relevance.

I'll just remind you these birds are natives of these lands and were here before humans arrived.

So what! So were bears. Why not restore them as well?

Just out of curiosity do you just randomly form opinions and then just look for evidence to back it up afterwards? By the way nice find, university of Nebraska! I'll take my evidence from official Norwegian(not a small US study) sources thanks! Did you even read that study yourself before forming your (random) opinion?

Eh... did you read the study? Because the journal it was published in is from Nebraska not the paper! It is by the Norweigian agricultural research institute and the University of Oslo! Seriously... read the paper!

How can you be taken seriously?

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

Medieval? That's modern practice, and it works perfectly well. However, it's largely something done by barley some other crop farmers, and the birds are shot, so I don't really see the relevance.

So what! So were bears. Why not restore them as well?

Eh... did you read the study? Because the journal it was published in is from Nebraska not the paper! It is by the Norweigian agricultural research institute and the University of Oslo! Seriously... read the paper!

How can you be taken seriously?

Answer the questions or you're just boring. Where is the evidence they are attacking lambs in Ireland? That is where we both live right? not Norway! I have Duncan Halley from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, who says they never found a single verifiable attack on a lamb by a White Tailed eagle and you have one paper part authored by someone from the Norweigian agricultural research institute that says the Golden Eagle is the lowest carnivore threat to lambs in Norway. So lets get to heart of the matter for us, what about Ireland? Also a lot of the birds were poisoned, most of them in fact.

But the eagle found dead is the 19th protected bird of prey found dead from suspected poison in the last three years.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/norway-fury-at-irish-over-eagle-deaths-14805268.html#ixzz17l9DdWt1

The use of poison is extremely backward (I'd say it's a fair bet we're one of the last countries in Europe to practise it) and is like using cluster bombs in a war, extremely imprecise and just kills lots of random unfortunate animals.

Oh and I don't for one second believe you even read that study. You've clearly stated you have no interest in sheep or eagles, so why would you have read it before you posted? Why don't you come clean and just state what is your interest? and respond to the other points in my post while you are at it, I made several clear economic points in favour of reintroducing this magnificent apex predator and your reply is... ?

later12

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Answer the questions or you're just boring. Where is the evidence they are attacking lambs in Ireland? That is where we both live right? not Norway!

Hmmm. You're the one bringing up Norway. The only points I was making in relation to what you said are that

later10 wrote: »

the first disclaimer I would offer here is that I'm not necessarily arguing for or against the report. I just have two problems with your reasoning

1. If these birds are not unlikely to kill lambs, or chickens, why would they be likely to behave as apex predators and, as you suggest, kill foxes?
2. Secondly, Norway is ecologically and geographically very different to Ireland - obviously. The countryside is far more remote and birds are much less likely to come into contact with farm dwellings or domestic animals

Do you care to respond to that?

Furthermore, the Norwegian report I provided suggests that the eagles do attack lambs, unlike your evidence which I've yet to see.

From the report:

The effect is most important in areas with predators that apparently spe- cialize in attacking lambs, such as wolverine, lynx, and the golden eagle

and

Losses to golden eagle are generally small by comparison to the other predators, however in northern Norway damage by golden eagle is also important. The golden eagle clearly prefers lambs (Bergo, 1990).

The report goes on to calculate the economic impact of the golden eagle on sheep farming to be between 200,000 and 900,000 US Dollars - and that was at 1994 prices!

Anyway, I am not suggesting that these birds are attacking or have ever attacked lambs in Ireland in recent history. Like I said, I just happen to dislike when interested parties, be they farmers who apparently poison the birds or people who are pro conservation, misrepresent the truth or try to distort their case by providing unbalanced sources.
I am a farmer's son although my current professional career, and my life, is removed from rural interests. However, I am well aware of the pressures that livestock mortality can succumb to as well as the fatuity some of these often left wing/ green party/ pro conservation demands, or their shock when they arrive in "the country" on a given bank holiday weekend and witness apparently barbaric practices like dehorning, burdizzo, fox hunting, and so on. Some of these people have no practical understanding of agriculture or farming and yet, in my experience, are often among the most vocal opponents of such practices.

Oh and I don't for one second believe you even read that study. You've clearly stated you have no interest in sheep or eagles, so why would you have read it before you posted?

Are you for real? I'm surprised you even had the neck to reply given that you thought the study was from Nebraska instead of Norway.

It makes little difference to me personally if eagles attack the Irish sheep, ignore them or are posioned, emigrate, or otherwise disappear. The same is true of most people, in most farmers in general, given the amount of people getting out of the sheep industry. However, nobody has yet come up with a credible reason why this is useful - the closest you have even come is mentioning 'apex order' - well, what exactly is the problem with apex order as it currently stands, or has stood for the past 100 years? Why the sudden need for "conservationists" - though not really conserving as much as introducing - to introduce this species here?

NewHillel

Scofflaw wrote: »

Of what value is caring for the elderly, given they're no longer economically useful, and would have died quite naturally if they weren't supported at a cost to working people?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, but perhaps a debate best suited to the philisophy forum.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote:

Do you care to respond to that?

I did respond earlier, you didn't read it.

Sesshoumaru wrote:

There are millions of sharks in the ocean, yet worldwide we only have a handful of attacks on humans, most not being fatal. You'd think some slow humans swimming in the ocean would be a tasty snack. However sharks simply don't see us as food and so don't hunt humans. I believe it is the same for eagles, lambs are not their natural prey, so why hunt them?

There are lots of cases where man comes into contact with predators capable of eating a human. However in most cases this doesn't happen as predators hunt prey they have been programmed to hunt by nature.

later10 wrote:

The report goes on to calculate the economic impact of the golden eagle on sheep farming to be between 200,000 and 900,000 US Dollars - and that was at 1994 prices!

I went here and that worked out at between 3 and 12 million US dollars. 2.2 million Euro to roughly 9 million Euro at today's exchange rate.

I also asked you a question. What is not in doubt is that these birds DO eat foxes and ravens. Lambs DO die from these animals that are considered pests by farmers. Although it may be hard to quantify, reducing fox and raven numbers will also surely have a positive affect on lamb mortality. Simple logic would seem to dictate that less foxes = less dead lambs. Care to comment or will you ignore this point again?

later10 wrote:

Anyway, I am not suggesting that these birds are attacking or have ever attacked lambs in Ireland in recent history.

If you haven't said it directly, what are you implying here?

later10 wrote:

I would hazard a guess that it works in Scotland firstly because the highland landscape is far more remote and secondly there are a lot less sheep farmers per hectare but grazing a lot more sheep.

later10 wrote:

Some of these people have no practical understanding of agriculture or farming and yet, in my experience, are often among the most vocal opponents of such practices.

You tried to claim poisoning the land was a modern practise and that most birds are shot. Do you still claim so? Just because someone works the land doesn't mean they understand every aspect of nature perfectly. You said it yourself, a farmer is a business man first. If nature and biodiversity get in the way of profit, then our environment loses out.

later10 wrote:

Are you for real? I'm surprised you even had the neck to reply given that you thought the study was from Nebraska instead of Norway.

I'll admit I made that mistake. But frankly I can't believe you have the gall to reply after stating that you think poisoning carcasses and leaving them on the land is a fine and dandy modern farming practise! That kind of shoots down your own point on farmers being oracles of environmental wisdom

later10 wrote:

Medieval? That's modern practice, and it works perfectly well.

later10 wrote:

However, nobody has yet come up with a credible reason why this is useful - the closest you have even come is mentioning 'apex order' - well, what exactly is the problem with apex order as it currently stands, or has stood for the past 100 years? Why the sudden need for "conservationists" - though not really conserving as much as introducing - to introduce this species here?

Just because you don't understand the useful function apex predators fulfil, doesn't mean they don't exist. It's not my job to educate you. You can obviously use Google/whatever search engine to find random obscure reports on carnivores that you've never read before, so why not use those Google skills to find out for yourself the role apex predators play?

I've also mentioned economic reasons, some multiple times. How much time and money does it cost farmers to constantly keep hunting foxes? Is time spent hunting not an economic cost to them? Is money spent on poison (which is now outlawed) not an economic cost?

I also gave an example of the Dingle Dolphin. How having certain species in a locality can help bring tourists in. You may have no interest in these birds, but plenty of other people do.

As for the problem, I don't think (and clearly the people through their elected representatives don't think) that poisoning the land is an acceptable or modern practise. Maybe there is a problem with the "apex order" after all?

later10 wrote:

Why the sudden need for "conservationists" - though not really conserving as much as introducing - to introduce this species here?

I don't think anyone who knows me would consider me a conservationist. Also we're not "introducing" these birds, we're "re-introducing" them. I've already stated why I think they're required to maintain balance in the system. But on a different level entirely, humans have altered this planet to suit their needs throughout history. If humans wiped them out for stupid reasons e.g. collecting their eggs, mistakenly thinking they carry off young children etc. Then why can't humans re-introduce them simply because we like them? We do a lot of things simply because we can! Why not also in the case of re-introducing eagles in Ireland?

I will reiterate though, they serve plenty of useful functions besides looking magnificent.



White Tailed Eagle in Kerry

Einhard

later10 wrote: »

I'm not against compensation, but the question must be raised - what's the point of having these birds here anyway?

Umm, they're a remarkable creature, native to these shores. Surely that's reason enough? What's the point in elephants, cougars, kangaroos? Do you attach value to something purely on a monetary basis? Seems somewhat crass and shallow to me.

Secondly, communal spirit? a good farmer is a business man. A person who expects a farmer to engage in communal spirit and overlook lamb mortality issues is not living in the real world.

Yet many farmers expect the rest of us to pay them subsidies to supplement their income; expect us to purchase more expensive milk and other products to protect their income; and demand that we not apply free trade to their particular sector to protect their income. Farmers, it appears, can be very communal when they want to be. But when it comes to actually giving something back, they're hard headed business men only...

I would pose the question of what serious benefit are these birds to the Irish countryside? And surely these birds went extinct in the first place because they were not seen as valuable or beneficial - perhaps indeed, harmful - and therefore were routinely hunted to the same end as foxes are today.

They bring a sense of wonder and pleasure to thousands of people who see them every day. They attract hill walkers to sites that they nest in. I travelled to Wicklow recently to hike, purely because I hoped to see the red kite. They already have signs and trails up, and are using the kite as a means to market the county and the hills in particular.

Do we really need to start introducing species that have already failed to survive here? Why not go one step further and introduce conservation programs to breed pandas, ant eaters, llamas or other relatively pointless creatures into the Irish countryside!

They haven't failed to survive. That makes it sound like it was a passive extinction, that they were somehow rejected by evolutionary processes. They weren't. They were ruthlessly hunted to extinction,. It wasn't a failure on the part of the raptors; it was a policy of extermination on the part of farmers that saw them disappear. If we were to go by your logic, we wouldn't even try to prevent the likes of the tiger or elephant going extinct. Afterall, they are "failing" the same as the eagle did...

later10 wrote: »

Yes, it does seem rather pointless in relation to Ireland. They don't seem to be able to peacefully co exist with farmers who apparently only seek to destroy them based on real or perceived threat to livestock, and they offer no clear benefit to Irish ecology or rural life. So what's the point?

Are you for real? If I shot you in the face would that be classed as a failure on your part to peacefully co-exist with me?! There was no failure on the eagles' part; they were hunted ruthlessly. They had no chance. The negative consequences of this programe is miniscule- it's been running for years now, and there's yet to eb a report of a lamb seized by a raptor. Yes the potential benefits are manifold- montery through tourism, environmental through introducing a new predator to the food chain*, and reputational.

* It's funny that when advocates for hunting, coursing and other rural pursuits that have as their aim the killing of animals, seek to defend their pastimes, thet often do so on the grounds that they keep overbreeding in check, yet when a natural predator who will do just that is introduced, they pretend that no such benefit exists!

(I've nothing against hunting btw!)

later10 wrote: »

How can you be taken seriously?

How can anyone who scaremongers about the threat supposedly posed by these birds to farm stock, and yet cannot produce a single instance in the years since their re-introduction, of their being responsible for such an attack!