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.

OpenYourEyes

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

There is an issue too, where you say you'll pay out whenever a WTEagle kills a lamb - which then gives the impression to landowners and the general public that it's likely to happen - otherwise why would there be a scheme?! And it's a slippery slope from there!

123shooter

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

There is an issue too, where you say you'll pay out whenever a WTEagle kills a lamb - which then gives the impression to landowners and the general public that it's likely to happen - otherwise why would there be a scheme?! And it's a slippery slope from there!

Does that mean you have to make a choice between Eagles, Wolves, Bears and Dinosaurs or farming ?

Base price

Thalia Prehistoric Lacquer wrote: »

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

Can you expand on the above as your perceived point passed by me.
BTW I'm a farmer/landowner.

Birdnuts

123shooter wrote: »

Does that mean you have to make a choice between Eagles, Wolves, Bears and Dinosaurs or farming ?

- Not sure what you point is there since bears/wolves are a totally different kettle of fish to eagles for obvious reasons. In any case may I suggest a trip to parts of Europe like Romania, Poland, Turkey where farmers operate very successfully along side these species. I have been to Turkey myself in the past few years and was well impressed with the set-up and attitude of farmers there to wildlife in general - maybe we could learn a lot this side of Europe about living with such species. I would also point out that herbivores like wild boar,deer and rabbits etc. do far more damage to farming then any wolf or bear population anywhere

PS: I'm not suggesting for one moment that we re-introduce wolves or bears to this country, I'm just making the point that in this part of the world many seem to have little tolerance,understanding and are indeed prone to much hysteria when it comes to such matters eg. the attitude of some to the handful of harmless eagles we have in this country.

Zoo4m8

To be honest I'm not sure how this thread has reached its third page.. The Mail is a 'paper' that caters for the (very) lowest common denominator and its content is usually sensationalist and wrong..

The loss of an odd lamb whether to an eagle or fox would be considered by most farmers as part and parcel of the job.
My biggest losses by a long way have been from deaths and injuries from attacks by people's pets from the nearby town..and I never thought I'd say this but this is where I take issue with Birdnuts, just for the record nearly all dog attacks on sheep in this country are by people's pets not by feral dogs.

As an 'ignorant farmer stuck in my ways' the amount of trauma and distress I've seen inflicted on my animals over the years by dogs owned by 'smart, well educated' people who couldn't be arsed keeping control of their pets is way beyond what any compensation might address.

Back to Eagles, I had the opportunity to be up close and personal to a Sea Eagle recently and impressive it certainly was..I can only say that I'm looking forward to a time when one can glance up and say 'ah sure, it's just a Sea Eagle' though at my age I don't think that's going to happen!

123shooter

Zoo4m8 wrote: »

To be honest I'm not sure how this thread has reached its third page.. The Mail is a 'paper' that caters for the (very) lowest common denominator and its content is usually sensationalist and wrong..

The loss of an odd lamb whether to an eagle or fox would be considered by most farmers as part and parcel of the job.
My biggest losses by a long way have been from deaths and injuries from attacks by people's pets from the nearby town..and I never thought I'd say this but this is where I take issue with Birdnuts, just for the record nearly all dog attacks on sheep in this country are by people's pets not by feral dogs.

As an 'ignorant farmer stuck in my ways' the amount of trauma and distress I've seen inflicted on my animals over the years by dogs owned by 'smart, well educated' people who couldn't be arsed keeping control of their pets is way beyond what any compensation might address.

Back to Eagles, I had the opportunity to be up close and personal to a Sea Eagle recently and impressive it certainly was..I can only say that I'm looking forward to a time when one can glance up and say 'ah sure, it's just a Sea Eagle' though at my age I don't think that's going to happen!

The Daily Mail, it is a newspaper (digital edition) and it would not be there if people didn't like it, so it is what people want. Similar could be said about RTE news and the like here in Ireland which is politically biased and pure propaganda and just as wrong, but if some want it then so be it.

123shooter

Birdnuts wrote: »

- Not sure what you point is there since bears/wolves are a totally different kettle of fish to eagles for obvious reasons. In any case may I suggest a trip to parts of Europe like Romania, Poland, Turkey where farmers operate very successfully along side these species. I have been to Turkey myself in the past few years and was well impressed with the set-up and attitude of farmers there to wildlife in general - maybe we could learn a lot this side of Europe about living with such species. I would also point out that herbivores like wild boar,deer and rabbits etc. do far more damage to farming then any wolf or bear population anywhere

PS: I'm not suggesting for one moment that we re-introduce wolves or bears to this country, I'm just making the point that in this part of the world many seem to have little tolerance,understanding and are indeed prone to much hysteria when it comes to such matters eg. the attitude of some to the handful of harmless eagles we have in this country.

Actually Birdnuts I would be all for introducing native animals back in to this country and a National park set aside where they can live and of course be observed. But it's complicated.

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

Does that mean you have to make a choice between Eagles, Wolves, Bears and Dinosaurs or farming ?

No, certainly not. Farmers and Eagles can live side by side, like they do already do in many places here and abroad. You obviously have a lot of concerns about the Eagles, but the White-tailed Eagle project is slowly improving and most persecution incidents happened years ago with only a few in recent years - proof that many farmers either don't share your concerns, or they shared your concerns in the past but those concerns have since been allayed.

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

The Daily Mail, it is a newspaper (digital edition) and it would not be there if people didn't like it, so it is what people want. Similar could be said about RTE news and the like here in Ireland which is politically biased and pure propaganda and just as wrong, but if some want it then so be it.

People like a lot of things that are bad for them. Just because people like it doesn't mean it's correct. Most people wouldn't enjoy sitting down and reading an issue of the journals Science or Nature but that doesn't make them less credible sources than the Daily Mail!

123shooter

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

No, certainly not. Farmers and Eagles can live side by side, like they do already do in many places here and abroad. You obviously have a lot of concerns about the Eagles, but the White-tailed Eagle project is slowly improving and most persecution incidents happened years ago with only a few in recent years - proof that many farmers either don't share your concerns, or they shared your concerns in the past but those concerns have since been allayed.

Actually I have no concern at all about Eagles, Wolves, Grizzly Bears or Dinosaurs:) I just thought how people get all excited about a fox taking a lamb but think it's ok for another animal.

It's a funny old world don't you think?

123shooter

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

People like a lot of things that are bad for them. Just because people like it doesn't mean it's correct. Most people wouldn't enjoy sitting down and reading an issue of the journals Science or Nature but that doesn't make them less credible sources than the Daily Mail!

Totally agree but people would rather believe a science/nature journal or RTE and Sky News over the Daily Mail or Express but they could equally be wrong or correct in their reporting.

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

Actually I have no concern at all about Eagles, Wolves, Grizzly Bears or Dinosaurs:) I just thought how people get all excited about a fox taking a lamb but think it's ok for another animal.

It's a funny old world don't you think?

I take you back to my earlier point, and Zoo4M8 said something similar, that Eagles aren't responsible for large losses of lambs. People are, and should be, more concerned with the things that cause large losses of lambs.

cd07

Eagles are a native bird of this country shot and poisoned to extinction before by man. They have more rights to be here and prey on whatever they choose as they've been here a lot longer than man or their livestock

magicbastarder

123shooter wrote: »

they could equally be wrong or correct in their reporting.

equally? an equal chance of being wrong as the daily mail? you realise the daily mail has probably the worst reputation of any 'newspaper' or news outlet on sale.

remember, this is the newspaper whose reporter claimed to be a local sympathiser to get into the house of the woman bereaved by the tragedy of the multiple drowning in donegal a few years ago, and quoted from a conversation which the poor woman thought was just with someone local.

OldRio

123shooter wrote: »

Totally agree but people would rather believe a science/nature journal or RTE and Sky News over the Daily Mail or Express but they could equally be wrong or correct in their reporting.

Experience tells me that I would rather believe the Dandy or Beano comics than the Daily Mail.

Yes I do remember buying said comics.

recedite

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.

But foxes also eat rats rabbits etc, and not just lambs. If there were the same number of WTSE eagles as foxes, then eagle damage to lambs could be quite significant.

Or to put it another way, if eagles were very common, and foxes were very rare, then maybe the eagles would be called pests, and foxes would be protected. Which I think is fair enough, and perhaps that is the answer to 123shooter's question.

Birdnuts wrote: »

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.

I think technology can help here. Suppose a gps tagged lamb was tracked meandering around a field all day, then suddenly flew cross country up onto the top of a cliff or a mountain. Safe to say an eagle was involved.
If the lamb stopped moving for 8 hours, and then shifted off to some bushes at the edge of the field, more likely died of natural causes and was scavenged by a fox.
Not sure how cheaply gps tagging of lambs could be done, but it might be a runner if used just within the territory of a nesting pair of eagles. Mainly to protect the reputation of those eagles.


On the link in the OP, even if we all agree that the Daily Mail might not be the most reliable of newspapers, that does not mean every photo it publishes is a hoax, and every story must be a lie. That would be succumbing to an "ad hominem" fallacy.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Base price wrote: »

Can you expand on the above as your perceived point passed by me.
BTW I'm a farmer/landowner.

No amount of explaining will shift the ignorant views of some people. Some will always view birds of prey as deadly animals waiting to massacre their entire herd/flock.

Why do you state that you are a farmer/landowner, what does that matter?

magicbastarder

Base price wrote: »

Can you expand on the above as your perceived point passed by me.
BTW I'm a farmer/landowner.

he did say 'ignorant farmers', which i would read as 'farmers who are ignorant'; so a subset of them, rather than it being a 'bloody farmers!' type of comment aimed at them all.

OpenYourEyes

recedite wrote: »

Or to put it another way, if eagles were very common, and foxes were very rare, then maybe the eagles would be called pests, and foxes would be protected. Which I think is fair enough, and perhaps that is the answer to 123shooter's question.

I see what you're saying, and I think it's true to a large extent, but I think it's worth pointing out that the reason there are more losses to foxes than WTEagles isn't just because there are more foxes, there's a behavioural element to it. If we had 5-times as many WTEagles as foxes there'd still probably be more losses across the country to the foxes.

Birdnuts

recedite wrote: »

But foxes also eat rats rabbits etc, and not just lambs. If there were the same
number of WTSE eagles as foxes, then eagle damage to lambs could be quite
significant.

Or to put it another way, if eagles were very common, and
foxes were very rare, then maybe the eagles would be called pests, and foxes
would be protected. Which I think is fair enough, and perhaps that is the answer
to 123shooter's question.

Sounds like a Metaphysical argument about a parallel universe - could probably be summed up by the phase( if my aunt had balls...........:pac:

I think technology can help here. Suppose a gps tagged lamb was tracked
meandering around a field all day, then suddenly flew cross country up onto the
top of a cliff or a mountain. Safe to say an eagle was involved.
If the
lamb stopped moving for 8 hours, and then shifted off to some bushes at the edge
of the field, more likely died of natural causes and was scavenged by a fox.

Not sure how cheaply gps tagging of lambs could be done, but it might be a
runner if used just within the territory of a nesting pair of eagles. Mainly to
protect the reputation of those eagles.

The study I referred to earlier in this thread used just such technology