Mmmmmm

123shooter

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488640/Farmers-anger-sea-eagles-lamb-attacks.html

Nature ?

Birdnuts

123shooter wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4488640/Farmers-anger-sea-eagles-lamb-attacks.html

Nature ?

Very poor quality photos in that - looks more like a rabbit/hare. In any case it doesn't show the eagle actually killing anything. Just carrying a small dead carcass which could just have have easily died from any number of causes like disease, starvation etc. Eagles are well known scavangers and the likes of after birth and sheep carcasses will attract them. Of course an eagle that seize could conceivably kill a small lamb, in reality it appears to be a very rare occurrence when such matters have been looked at in a scientific way like the study below from the same part of Scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/8672303.stm.

These birds have been present and breeding in this country for many years now with no reports of problems - indeed even Kerry IFA admitted a few years ago that their initial fears were unfounded. In any case the Daily Mail loves silly season stuff like this - they typically run stories like this throughout the summer about man-eating badgers and the like:rolleyes:

marlin vs

There's always three sides to a story their side , our side, and the truth.

marlin vs

Should this be in the nature and bird watching forum?

Cass

Moving to N&BW as this is not hunting related.

Birdnuts

To illustrate my point about the Daily Mail and its reporters ignorance of such matters - sharp eyed folks will notice that the falconry bird they show in the final picture isn't a WT sea-eagle at all - its a Stellars Sea-Eagle that is significantly bigger than the former species.

recedite

Looks like a lamb to me. But why all the denials here? Even the Scottish study linked above says

seabirds, such as fulmar, were the main source of food for sea eagles and that less than 2% of deaths among lambs could be directly attributed to the eagles.

So this lamb is one of the 2%. Its no big deal, and it would only happen occasionally, and at a certain time of year.
The farmer should be compensated for the lamb, if the lamb was taken alive.
No idea how that would be proved, but perhaps there is some tagging technology available at a cheap enough price. Reusable lamb jackets fitted with gps tags, for use inside eagle territory?



There was another thread recently where it was reported that a buzzard had carried off a miniature dog, and instead of facing up to it, the immediate response here was to decry it as a lie. That's not really helpful in the long run.

Birdnuts

recedite wrote: »

Looks like a lamb to me. But why all the denials here? Even the Scottish study linked above says So this lamb is one of the 2%. .

Its 2% of all losses - not 2% of lambs. Its a vanishingly small number and means your chances of losing a lamb to an eagle is extremely remote compared to other sources of loss like disease, weather, foxes ettc.. Given that eagles prey a lot on vermin like fox cubs, crows etc. that do a lot of damage to sheep, they are actually an advantage for sheep farmers to have around the place.

PS: As for buzzards eating dogs - thats about as credible as those reports of man-eating Pine Marten in the midlands:rolleyes:

Birdnuts

To illustrate my point


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/ulster-eagles-cause-crow-attacks-on-lambs-to-decline-28563250.html

recedite

Interesting that the hooded crows have been dislodged to some extent by the return of an apex predator. But you would subsequently have to expect the apex predator to then act like an apex predator.

I find it somewhat bizarre that you have no problem believing fox cubs can be taken by birds of prey, but are reluctant to accept that lambs or miniature dog breeds could be.
It seems you are letting a preconceived agenda get in the way of your acceptance of these things.

Birdnuts

recedite wrote: »

Interesting that the hooded crows have been dislodged to some extent by the return of an apex predator. But you would subsequently have to expect the apex predator to then act like an apex predator.

I find it somewhat bizarre that you have no problem believing fox cubs can be taken by birds of prey, but are reluctant to accept that lambs or miniature dog breeds could be.
It seems you are letting a preconceived agenda get in the way of your acceptance of these things.

I'm basing my opinions on verifiable facts via scientific/public bodies like the BTO, SNH etc. and not hysteria from UK ragsheets and other junk media outlets. You seem to put more credence on the latter for some reason:rolleyes:

PS: Do I take it that you believe BOPS are taking large numbers of dog,cats. livestock etc. in this country?? and that it in an issue worthy of pages in the national media - cos that's the impression I get from your comments on this matter

magicbastarder

i'm always amused that the only 'newspaper' website blocked by our proxy in work is the daily mail. proper order too.

OpenYourEyes

recedite wrote: »

I find it somewhat bizarre that you have no problem believing fox cubs can be taken by birds of prey, but are reluctant to accept that lambs or miniature dog breeds could be.
It seems you are letting a preconceived agenda get in the way of your acceptance of these things.

Golden Eagles are known to have taken fox cubs. Golden Eagles live in very remote habitat, where foxes are plentiful. They're not the type of birds you're likely to have perched on your tv aerial on top of the house, and therefore highly unlikely to ever be in a situation where they could take a miniature dog. So they could do it, but are unlikely to ever be in a situation area where they would do it.

Buzzards on the other hand are much more likely to be seen from your back window, but weigh a lot less than a Golden Eagle and are built more for scavenging and hunting easy meals (e.g. naive fledgling pigeons and crows, rats etc) than hunting anything as challenging as a fox cub.

Be careful when you discuss "birds of prey taking X" and then go on to discuss eagles and buzzards - they're two completely different things. Lumping them together in a discussion like this only helps to reinforce preconceived agendas!

OpenYourEyes

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its 2% of all losses - not 2% of lambs. Its a vanishingly small number and means your chances of losing a lamb to an eagle is extremely remote compared to other sources of loss like disease, weather, foxes ettc..

If its the same study I'm thinking of, it's worth noting that the majority of those very few lamb losses were attributed to a 'problematic pair' rather than your 'average' WTEagle. That's not to say your average WTEagle couldn't do it, but they don't.

123shooter

What's the difference between an Eagle and a Fox in this situation?

Birdnuts

123shooter wrote: »

What's the difference between an Eagle and a Fox in this situation?

Not sure what you mean by this?? - Eagles are rare shy birds of mainly wilderness areas while foxes are extremely common and are found throughout the country from urban to rural areas. Foxes are also larger, heavier and bolder and so can take larger prey and have higher food demands - the can also operate at night when prey like lambs are more vulnerable. They are also smarter and can exploit many food sources that other predators can't which is why they are so succesfull. In any case the studies on both species highlight the difference in their modus operandi pretty thouroughly

magicbastarder

123shooter wrote: »

What's the difference between an Eagle and a Fox in this situation?

eagles can fly, foxes cannot.
foxes give birth to live young, eagles lay eggs.

etc. etc.

yes, i know i'm being facetious, but surely you read the thread and learned that lamb predation is not even close to a significant issue with eagles?

123shooter

Yes I know about the physical differences. The situation I refer too is they are both preying on livestock so what is the answer?

Regardless of how often they take livestock is not important. All other animals which take livestock are deemed as a pest like a fox. So where do you draw the line?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

123shooter wrote: »

Yes I know about the physical differences. The situation I refer too is they are both preying on livestock so what is the answer?

Regardless of how often they take livestock is not important. All other animals which take livestock are deemed as a pest like a fox. So where do you draw the line?

You are in the wrong forum for agreement that they are pests.

123shooter

Beckham Gray U-boat wrote: »

You are in the wrong forum for agreement that they are pests.

I didn't..........read again.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

123shooter wrote: »

I didn't..........read again.

I was referring to both species.

123shooter

Beckham Gray U-boat wrote: »

I was referring to both species.

Ok no problem I see your point but that is another issue which is that if there are no pests in your eyes then it would be pointless farming anything unless you know other?

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

Regardless of how often they take livestock is not important.

Eh no, that's quite literally the most important factor actually!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Birdnuts wrote: »

Just carrying a small dead carcass which could just have have easily died from any number of causes like disease, starvation etc.

With such poor quality photos, how have you arrived at the conclusion that the animal is dead? Or was dead when picked up?

Very difficult to see what kind of an animal it is. I can't even tell if it's a 2 or 4 legged creature.

Lamb or not, ignorant farmers will remain "stuck in their ways" until the day they die.

123shooter

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Eh no, that's quite literally the most important factor actually!

How?

123shooter

Thalia Prehistoric Lacquer wrote: »

Lamb or not, ignorant farmers will remain "stuck in their ways" until the day they die.

Possibly but not all are the same.

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

How?

If something is causing the death of 1 in a thousand lambs, and something else is causing the death of 1 in 50 or 1 in 20 lambs, whether thats an individual species or a parasite or an infection or whatever, the thing that's causing the death of 1 in a thousand lambs is of much less concern and so the reaction to it is likely to be very different.

123shooter

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

If something is causing the death of 1 in a thousand lambs, and something else is causing the death of 1 in 50 or 1 in 20 lambs, whether thats an individual species or a parasite or an infection or whatever, the thing that's causing the death of 1 in a thousand lambs is of much less concern and so the reaction to it is likely to be very different.

I see so that's where you draw your line then. Your line is drawn on how much damage they can or actually do? What about those who are affected do you think they should be compensated for their loss or?

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

I see so that's where you draw your line then. Your line is drawn on how much damage they can or actually do? What about those who are affected do you think they should be compensated for their loss or?

Well any logical person would put 50 times more time and effort into preventing the thing causing 1/20 deaths compared to 1/1000.

I wouldn't rule out a compensation scheme, but there are lots of problems with it, and it's not really relevant for Ireland - we have a handful of golden eagle's that could well take a couple of lambs, and that's it! A very small scale compensation scheme is needed for that. Foxes then, the farmer has the legislative support to deal with.

Birdnuts

123shooter wrote: »

Yes I know about the physical differences. The situation I refer too is they are both preying on livestock so what is the answer?

Regardless of how often they take livestock is not important. All other animals which take livestock are deemed as a pest like a fox. So where do you draw the line?

As demonstrated on this thread with links to studies on the matter, the number of lambs lost to eagles in so small, it is on a par to the likes of lightning strikes and falling trees. So commonsense kicks in when it comes to wildlife protection laws which give rare relatively harmless species like Eagles full protection, while common destructive species like foxes have none. I already mentioned that eagles kill significant numbers of fox cubs and crows which provide significant benefits to sheep farmers and other upland wildlife which is another important factor in their protected status.Eagles are also a big tourist attraction in places like Killarney and Lough Derg which brings in money to rural communities - on Mull in Scotland vistors bring in several million ponds to the local economy just to see these birds. Compared to the remote chance that a farmer might lose a lamb every 10 years to an eagle it makes sense on this level alone to give them full protection.

Birdnuts

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Well any logical person would put 50 times more time and effort into preventing the thing causing 1/20 deaths compared to 1/1000.

I wouldn't rule out a compensation scheme, but there are lots of problems with it, and it's not really relevant for Ireland - we have a handful of golden eagle's that could well take a couple of lambs, and that's it! A very small scale compensation scheme is needed for that. Foxes then, the farmer has the legislative support to deal with.

The problem with such compensation schemes is that it might encourage farmers to claim an eagle killed a lamb, when in reality it was a fox. In France this is a significant problem with the return of wolves where compensation is paid out when they kill livestock, but they get a lot of spurious claims that turn out to be packs of feral dogs - the latter being a big problem in this country when it comes to sheep deaths.