Mmmmmm

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

recedite

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

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.

Maybe, we can only speculate. I think foxes are more a predator of new born lambs, but give up on them fairly soon. Eagles could take bigger lambs if they had a taste for them, and an opportunity, ie the lambs were out in the open.
In both cases, they are more likely to start off on lambs that are already dead.
IMO sheep farmers could do more to help themselves. Keep the ewes in lambing sheds for a few weeks until the lambs are stronger, and promptly dispose of any stillborn ones, or sickly ones that have died. I've seen one guy who piles dead lambs up outside the lambing shed (intending to bury them whenever he has time to) but by that time the foxes have usually taken them away. So he is training predators to take lambs.

123shooter

Foxes usually only take new born lambs/weak lambs or multiple birth lambs (ewes are only designed to have 2 lambs maximum). Whereas an eagle because of their size and skill at hunting could take any lamb they fancy possibly.

Good points Openyoureyes.

So I think we agree there is no real difference between a fox and eagle when it comes to taking livestock. It's basically down to numbers of the predator and the eagle is better physically and has better hunting skills to take it's prey as it sees fit.

A farmer can actually protect his livestock from foxes until the livestock is old/strong enough to avoid the fox. Whereas an eagle just has to wait until the coast is clear and then swoop on anything it thinks it can handle.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

123shooter wrote: »

Foxes usually only take new born lambs/weak lambs or multiple birth lambs (ewes are only designed to have 2 lambs maximum). Whereas an eagle because of their size and skill at hunting could take any lamb they fancy possibly.

Good points Openyoureyes.

So I think we agree there is no real difference between a fox and eagle when it comes to taking livestock. It's basically down to numbers of the predator and the eagle is better physically and has better hunting skills to take it's prey as it sees fit.

A farmer can actually protect his livestock from foxes until the livestock is old/strong enough to avoid the fox. Whereas an eagle just has to wait until the coast is clear and then swoop on anything it thinks it can handle.

I think you are reading in to this what you want to see. The point is moot as WTSEs are not a threat to livestock.

123shooter

Beckham Gray U-boat wrote: »

I think you are reading in to this what you want to see. The point is moot as WTSEs are not a threat to livestock.

No I never said they were a threat. I said ---- What's the difference between an Eagle and a Fox in this situation?

As regards a threat -- we will only know if they become hundreds.

OpenYourEyes

123shooter wrote: »

Foxes usually only take new born lambs/weak lambs or multiple birth lambs (ewes are only designed to have 2 lambs maximum). Whereas an eagle because of their size and skill at hunting could take any lamb they fancy possibly.

Good points Openyoureyes.

So I think we agree there is no real difference between a fox and eagle when it comes to taking livestock. It's basically down to numbers of the predator and the eagle is better physically and has better hunting skills to take it's prey as it sees fit.

A farmer can actually protect his livestock from foxes until the livestock is old/strong enough to avoid the fox. Whereas an eagle just has to wait until the coast is clear and then swoop on anything it thinks it can handle.

No we don't agree that there is no real difference between a fox and an eagle when it comes to taking livestock - there's a long list of very relevant differences that you have no interest in giving a second thought to because it doesn't fit the point you've decided on before this thread was started. Pretty much everything you've said in that comment is factually incorrect. The sizes, behaviours and hunting strategies of foxes and any eagle species are drastically different. You might as well be saying that Kestrels and foxes should be looked at the same in terms of lamb predation

I say that not for your benefit, but for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading and be mistaken into thinking there's an ounce of sense in what you've said. There isn't. You know nothing about eagles and nothing about general predator behaviour and the basic differences that result in very practical real-world differences between something like a fox and a species of eagle.

Other posters here have made comments that I at least partially, if not largely, agree with and are coming from a point of useful discussion. You are not. You are trolling.

recedite

OpenYourEyes wrote: »

Pretty much everything you've said in that comment is factually incorrect. The sizes, behaviours and hunting strategies of foxes and any eagle species are drastically different. You might as well be saying that Kestrels and foxes should be looked at the same in terms of lamb predation..
..You are trolling.

Well actually 123shooter did give a summary of the differences in the hunting strategies between eagle and fox.
Not sure why you mention kestrels, nobody else did.
If you disagree with the comments below, why not elaborate on the reasons why, instead of directing insults at the poster?

123shooter wrote: »

Foxes usually only take new born lambs/weak lambs or multiple birth lambs (ewes are only designed to have 2 lambs maximum). Whereas an eagle because of their size and skill at hunting could take any lamb they fancy possibly....

A farmer can actually protect his livestock from foxes until the livestock is old/strong enough to avoid the fox. Whereas an eagle just has to wait until the coast is clear and then swoop on anything it thinks it can handle.

OpenYourEyes

recedite wrote: »

Well actually 123shooter did give a summary of the differences in the hunting strategies between eagle and fox.
Not sure why you mention kestrels, nobody else did.
If you disagree with the comments below, why not elaborate on the reasons why, instead of directing insults at the poster?

I've elaborated on the reasons why above.

I mentioned Kestrels to highlight the absurdity of some of what 123shooter has said.

The second quote in your comment there is rubbish - as I've highlighted in other comments above.

Mickeroo

Ok I think this thread has ran its course