Should there be a compensation scheme for eagle/kite attacks

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 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.

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

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.

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:

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?

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?

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... ?

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.

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!

later10 wrote:

The above is not an answer to my question, it is evading the question. I am not talking about overall figures - no reasonable person would claim that eagles are a threat to the overall lamb population of Ireland - that is not to say there are no unreasonable farmers out there, I'm sure many have blown the eagle's importance out of all proportion on both sides.

You missed the point entirely, flew straight by you! I'm not talking about overall figures either. I'm saying if predators hunt absolutely anything they can potentially eat, why don't sharks hunt humans more often? It's very simple... not sure what you're not getting here? All around the world there are millions of sharks in shallow oceans near the coast and there are millions of slow tasty humans swimming in said oceans. Like Eagles preferring foxes, why do the sharks prefer to hunt their natural prey. I don't know how I can make it any clearer to you!

later10 wrote:

Okay, but you do appreciate that this makes an even stronger case against eagles, right? Since that was the economic cost of these predatory animals in Norway in 1994.

My figure accounts for inflation, I brought it up to show that even if we took the highest figure(which no doubt you will want to do) it still works out at less than one fifth the cost of e-voting machines

later10 wrote:

There is no clear evidence so it is impossible to be sure, but unless i am missing something enormously significant I basic logic would indicate that these eagles would prefer lambs to more aggressive foxes... do you disagree? Why on earth would they prefer foxes? It would seem that the foxes would simply have extra competition.

See my point above about sharks. I can see you have no real affinity with the natural world. An observation not a judgement.

later10 wrote:

Actually I understood you to be referring to a completely different practice - that of barley and crop farmers shooting birds and leaving their carcasses hanging as a deterrent to seed loss or crop damage; apparently not. So no, I was never indicating that leaving poisoned carcasses lying about was modern, positive or a safe practice.

So you say, but I think I was pretty clear. What I said:

Sesshoumaru wrote:

Nothing to do with farmers engaging in medieval practises like leaving dead carcasses on the land laced with poison.

I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't mistake "dead carcasses" & "laced with poison" with what you say you thought it was. I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here or not?

later10 wrote:

Sometimes yes, but not exactly. Occasionally there is a clear economic benefit to biodiversity such as synergy of resources, grass conservation in relation to yield vs sugar content in particular comes to mind here.

Or like having an Apex predator keeping foxes and raven numbers in check. Here is an example of what happens to species numbers when they have no natural predator

Australia's relative isolation prior to European colonisation and the industrial revolution—both of which dramatically increased traffic and importation of novel species—allowed development of a complex, interdepending system of ecology, but one which provided no natural predators for many of the species subsequently introduced.

Of course we haven't done exactly the same. We haven't introduced an animal to a land where it has no natural predator. We caused the extinction through ignorance of a natural predator for foxes and ravens.

Before these BOP went extinct(through ignorant human intervention), how did farmers in Ireland ever manage without guns and poison?

later10 wrote:

Notice I didn't say farmers were oracles of environmental wisdom

later10 wrote:

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.

You implied it, like most of your points. Nothing direct, just implied.

later10 wrote:

I already know that there is no clear ecological benefit in terms of apex predation - I am asking you in the hope you might actually realise that yourself. There is no missing 'gap' at present to any real degree of significance - the absence of the golden eagle presented no real problem to the Irish landscape nor to Irish ecosystems. Hence my question, why was this bird allowed to go extinct to begin with - I was pointing out that its extinction was of little to no consequence. Everything carried on just fine.

As I pointed out at the start of this post you completely missed the point I was making in relation to sharks, completely the wrong angle you took. I've now also given you another example of the function of apex predators and what happens when a species has no natural predator. I'm hoping with my additional clarification on the sharks in addition to the Australian example you will come to understand as I do, that apex predators do indeed serve essentials functions.

later10 wrote:

Very, very little. Most people i am familiar with see it as a hobby, both in terms of shooting or mounted hunts. In the case of mounted hunts, there are many benefits to allowing hunts across your land, provided your land can cope with it and the hunt behaves responsibly with regard to poaching and destroying hedges. In fact up until recently, most hunts would often compensate sheep farmers for losses due to foxes, in some cases they still do. There was also the benefit of taking dead carcasses for the farmer. So in answer to your question - very little cost.

But why then are 19 Raptors dead from poisoning? Remeber there are less than 100 of these birds re-introduced at this time and they have only been here a few years. In fact the most numerous of the 3 species being re-introduced is actually quite small(less than 1kg) in size and the White Tailed Eagle prefers to hunt over oceans. So farmers can't be leaving poison laced carcasses on the land for Raptors! Can they? So why is this medieval practise so widespread? Why when I do a simple search I can find evidence on this very forum that fox predation on lambs is very common and worrying for farmers?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055841287

johngalway wrote:

This next paragraph is my opinion.

I'd shoot any dog on my land this time of year (which I have cleared with the cops before anyone decides to saddle a hobby horse ). Ewes are heavy in lamb and leaving aside the issue of a ewe being ripped/drowned/put off the edge of a cliff/etc. the stress of being worried by dogs would be enough to have them lose lambs. Dogs will also kill lambs given the opportunity.

My sheep are outdoors 100% of the time, I have no shed of my own besides a small one for any poorly animal.

Foxes will kill lambs, a lamb is a dopey easy meal for a fox. If you are worried about this, there are lads over in the shooting/hunting section (under Sports) who regularly shoot foxes. There may be someone near you doing this depending on what part of the country you're in.

Mine will be lambing in about three weeks or so, so I have started to reduce the numbers of foxes local to me now.

If you're unsure of the number of foxes in your area I'd advise contacting one of those guys. Farmers local to you simply may not admit to, or know, thye're losing lambs to foxes. Though larger scale fox predation is pretty obvious with bodyparts and skins spread about the place.

*emphasis added by me

later10 wrote:

I don't dispute that, all I am saying is that nobody has provided any information of the economic value of these birds. Unlike dolphins, these birds can be seen across broader land areas throughout Europe, so I wouldn't liken it to dolphins exactly. All we know for sure is that these eagles predatory nature was of very significant cost in Norway - up to nine million euro at today's rate, based on your own figures.

Epsiode two of "The Eagles Return" about 11 minutes in they interview a Norwegian farmer who lives in an area with a lot of White Tailed Eagles. He says he see's them landing among his lambs and sheep and never bothering them. Then they interview Duncan Halley head of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, who says they never found a single verifiable attack on a lamb by a White Tailed Eagle. Here is the website http://www.rte.ie/player I suggest you just go watch it. In fact in the same episode they interview about 5 Kerry farmers with a lot of them expressing the opinion that the fox IS a big threat to their lambs.

later10 wrote:

What do you mean in referring to elected representatives and the people? Poisoning the land has never been an election issue as far as I am aware, what are you talking about...

In a Western democracy we don't directly make decisions ourselves. We elect people to represent us and make those decisions. So I was making a clear point that you may think poisoned laced carcasses left on the land is a modern practise and perfectly OK. But the people of Ireland through their elected representatives(who recently outlawed the use of poison in the manner I just described) don't think it is acceptable.

later10 wrote:

Yes yes apex order. Can you name any significant reason in particular, which part of the predatory triangle, exactly, is at risk without these birds, in your opinion? You seem to be evading this... it seems to me that apex order is quite perfectly balanced as things stand.

I've answered very clearly numerous times now. I am in fact repeating this in different ways within single posts at this stage to try and make it clearer for you.

later10 wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with that. I would much rather if people just admitted they want to introduce them because they look pretty, or whatever, than suggesting they are of some serious ecological importance or responsible for restoring natural order; frankly, the latter is what sounds like nonsense.

I'm not going through this again. There are many clear examples worldwide of what happens when a natural predator is removed from an ecosystem or when an animal is introduced into a habitat where it has no natural predator. Again how did livestock farmers ever survive before shotguns and poison? Let me think, maybe there were more Raptors and less foxes!

later10 wrote:

In fairness, if you want to vent your personal issues with farmers, you've picked the wrong person. I am (a) not a farmer and (b) opposed to artificial support of the European agricultural industry; and your comments really have little to do with eagle and kite attacks to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Kite

Wikipedia wrote:

The Red Kite is 60–66 cm (24-27 in) long with a 175–195 cm wingspan; males have a weight of 800–1200 g, and females 1000–1300 g.

Wikipedia wrote:

The Red Kite's diet consists mainly of small mammals such as mice, voles, shrews, young hares and rabbits.

You realise the Kite is actually not near big enough to attack a lamb? You realise also that there are two types of Eagle being re-introduced. The White Tailed Eagle in Kerry and the Golden Eagle in Donegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_Eagle#Diet

Wikipedia wrote:

The Eagle's diet is varied, including fish, birds, carrion, and, occasionally, small mammals... In the Baltic, the diet of the sea eagle consists mainly of sea birds and pike. Recently they are reported to have attacked and eaten great cormorants.[3] The cormorant is an invading species in the Baltic, and the sea eagle may prove a valuable culler of the cormorant population.

The Golden Eagle is the only one of these three species big enough to take a lamb and is the one of the three Raptors being re-introduced to Ireland that is referred to in the report that you found after having already formed an opinion as to the value of these BOP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Eagle#Feeding

I like how presented kite attacks as though it were an established fact.

later10 wrote:

But that's the point. The necessity for farmers, as they saw it, to exterminate these animals in order to positively affect mortality rates, still persists.
What I would like to know is what genius thought up this idea. If these eagles do attack lambs, and were shot for that reason in the past, then what has changed? Surely it is common sense that unless you actually change farmer's perceptions about the eagle, or change the eagles taste in prey, then you are just repeating history.

You know a valuable definition of stupidity? doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. To me, that seems like what these conservationists are doing - they haven't actually grasped the root problem. Perhaps they believe that these birds must have just swallowed some magic disappearing beans last time around.

Why do you keep posting stuff as though it were accepted fact? Not all farmers think of them as a pest. According to the RTE documentary many farmers were supportive. Do you have evidence that all farmers want them exterminated? or even a majority of them? As I see it, it is a small minority of backward and ignorant farmers that are still leaving out poison to illegally kill these birds.

As for "or change the eagles taste in prey" I've already clearly explained what their taste in prey is and why they're not likely to change their "taste in prey". You've manage to find one single report on Golden Eagles that listed them as the smallest economic cost on sheep farmers when compared to all potential predators in a foreign country. How about one for Ireland? How about for our mouse hunting Red Kites? or our fishermen White Tailed Eagles?

later10 wrote:

Yes there has, I linked to it. According to the other poster, Sesshoumaru, the economic impact of these birds due mainly to their predation habits was up to 12 million US Dollars (at today's prices) in one year alone.

yes upto... thanks for not mentioning the lower end of the scale. Thanks for not mentioning this report you fully read before coming to this thread was for Golden Eagles ONLY. Thanks for not mentioning it was in an entirely different country.

later10 wrote:

I will ask you the same question that I asked Sesshoumaru.
Do you think that eagles are more likely to prey on lambs, or on foxes? Why would they be a danger to more aggressive animals like foxes (you seem to suggest they would keep numbers in check) and yet deny a risk to those most passive, non threatening and non aggressive of animals, lambs. That doesn't make sense.

Aggressive foxes? Are these the same foxes that have "Very, very little" economic cost? because I think it's obvious to the whole world that if foxes are aggressive they would kill lots of lambs.

Again your point about them preying on lambs and not foxes, answered half a million times at this stage. What makes sense to you, doesn't necessarily play out in nature the way you think it should.