Should there be a compensation scheme for eagle/kite attacks

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Copy and pasted from the report

The maximum values (50 to 70% of total losses), are based on data from mortality transmitter studies for the period 1988 to 1993 (Mysterud and Warren, 1991; 1994; Warren and Mysterud, 1995), and have been estimated at 14,890 sheep and 37,018 lambs lost to predators.

My point still stands. The minimum value was what the Norwegian government actually paid out in compensation for Golden Eagle attacks

But what you said was this:

The maximum value they have taken from a different report, which unless you can find? No one can vouch for the methodology or integrity of that report.

The maximum value was not taken from another report. The maximum value is a figure that arises in the report that I have directed you to. This figure is based on sheep loss data from transmitters which indicate various predation levels. That report was co-authored by the same co-author of this report, Ivan Mysterud. There are various reasons why the maximum values are more reliable, such as this
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=icwdmsheepgoat

The minimum or unquestioned losses were collected before the result of the farmer’s appeal of the outcome for each area and predator.

Or how about this reasoning, which explains the problem with accepting the minimum figure as reliable. I would like you to counter this statement with fact please.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/24342/1/cp03my01.pdf

The Norwegian system for compensation payments for predation caused losses places the responsibility for proving the cause on the farmers. This can indeed be very difficult and labour-intensive as often no remains of the sheep are found. When carcass remains are discovered, it can also be difficult to prove whether a predator is the cause or which predator in force, unless the remains are in good condition. Currently the majority of the lost animals are not compensated. In some incidents where the actual predator cannot be identified, compensation may be paid out if it is assumed to be a protected species involved.

The maximum value also calculates costs in a way that the compensator values did not - such as increased labour costs and damages incurred by the dams, such as mastitis as a direct result of infant lamb death.

Do you have any evidence based reason for doubting the evidence provided in these reports? Or the credibility of the overlapping co author, University of Oslo zoologist Ivan Mysterud?

You've some cheek suggesting I do more reading and that I am uneducated when some of your central points were based on our Golden Eagles coming from Norway and therefore exhibiting the same behavior in Ireland :rolleyes:

In fact it is the white tailed eagle that comes from Norway, but there is no reason to suggest why Irish golden eagles would behave dramatically differently to the Norwegian counterpart, unless you have such a reason?

By the way we're not discussing theoretical physics here, so while I agree Wikipedia isn't a great source, for the purposes of general reference I don't see any problem with using it on an internet forum.

Of course there is a problem, especially where supposed facts are very contentious. It is not just me saying this, there is a widespread and broadly shared opinion that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information intended for serious academic discourse or where the issue of reliability arises, save where sources are clear and unambiguous.
The link you tried to rely on earlier, for example, in claiming that golden eagles prefer fox meat, actually linked back to a youtube video of a golden eagle attacking and killing a goat. It is unreliable, and the fact that you rely so heavily on it causes you to lose credibility.

I have nothing to retract, because I never once stated Golden Eagles don't attack lambs.

But you did use the broad term 'eagles', suggesting, well, eagles. Or do you want to be reminded of this rather embarrassingly incorrect quote.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69497182&postcount=39

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?

Will you now retract that statement about the eagle population, considering it has been proven extensively to be incorrect?

The cost of these birds will be minimal, over time they may help bring in more money through tourism and Eagle/Kite related activities for tourists like bird walks etc

They would need to be seriously expensive birdwalks.

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that the cost will be minimal, given the fact that we are not simply talking about compensation here, but also equipment and the associated costs with acquiring and releasing these birds.
Furthermore, as I have already indicated, they may be expensive but we have a very very small eagle population. So what would attract eagle tourists to this obscure corner of Europe when they are far more common elsewhere, such as in Norway, a country with thousands more eagles than Ireland? Eagles are widespread across Europe and North America so it isn't clear why tourists would flock here particularly keenly.

T

he cost of transmitters and monitoring them is small, there are after all not that many birds and they're not all fitted with transmitters.

Yes, they are. Again, you are incorrect
http://www.goldeneagle.ie/news_viewnews.php?news_id=6&&z=229&start=3
And some are fitted with even more elaborate technology.
http://www.cef.ie/Ezines/2/MastersoftheSky.pdf

Some eagles have been fitted with solar powered satellite transmitters. These transmitters are light weight and they acquire a precise GPS position during daytime every few hours (in good conditions, if there is little cloud). Every week, data from the transmitter is uploaded to a communications satellite and this information is then regularly downloaded by Dr Mee.

If you'd watched the documentaries that I linked to you would see that these projects are run by a very small number of dedicated people.

Yes, but funded largely by taxpayers.

I'm sure you'll dismiss my analogy with art and culture or maybe based on your posts so far(where whether or not the eagles have immediate financial returns is the only valid basis on which to consider the validity of their re-introduction to Ireland) you already think government support for the arts is wasted money?

As someone who has been keenly involved in the arts back in Dublin, yes I know of some absolutely crazy funding decisions that occur in the arts. I would suggest it is the same with this project. We are no longer living in a celtic tiger era where the state can afford to throw money at darling projects just for the sake of it. The eagle and kite project might have been something we could have afforded in 2002 but we have to live in the real world now and ask ourselves (a) what benefit is there financially (b) what agricultural costs or other economic costs might occur and have already been incurred and (c) if golden eagles still prey on lambs, and farmers still wish to prevent that by attacking the golden eagle population and thereby endangering the other bird populations, then what, on earth is the point of it all?

By the way, I notice that you have now become silent on the issue of golden eagles preferring fox meat to lamb meat - so are you ready to now offer a retraction on that statement as well?

Again I am not attacking you personally, but when you make these crazy statements like asserting that eagles don't kill or hunt for lambs, or when you get Nebraska confused with Norway, when you quote wikipedia, or youtube, or studies of the Swedish tundra, then don't be surprised or offended when you are simply corrected.

Oh hi again, I thought you said you were leaving

Confusing Scotland and Norway was dumb.

I am not confusing Norway and Scotland, I merely thought the two types of eagles were being imported from vice versa countries. The fact that they don't is totally irrelevant! I don't see why you're saying it's not? Care to explain why Irish golden eagles should behave differently to the norwegian golden eagles?

I will again repeat what I put to you about the maximum figures stated in the report and why they should be considered more valuable. Do you care to respond, with contrary evidence as to why the minimum should be accepted

later10 wrote: »

The maximum value is a figure that arises in the report that I have directed you to. This figure is based on sheep loss data from transmitters which indicate various predation levels. That report was co-authored by the same co-author of this report, Ivan Mysterud. There are various reasons why the maximum values are more reliable, such as this
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=icwdmsheepgoat
Or how about this reasoning, which explains the problem with accepting the minimum figure as reliable. I would like you to counter this statement with fact please.
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/24342/1/cp03my01.pdf

The maximum value also calculates costs in a way that the compensator values did not - such as increased labour costs and damages incurred by the dams, such as mastitis as a direct result of infant lamb death.

Do you have any evidence based reason for doubting the evidence provided in these reports? Or the credibility of the overlapping co author, University of Oslo zoologist Ivan Mysterud?

And are you not also willing to retract your statement that eagles don't take lambs, and that golden eagles somehow prefer foxes to lambs, or that golden eagles are good for lamb mortality rates?

If not, are we to take your silence as a de facto retraction of what have emerged as extraordinarily incorrect claims completely invented on your behalf.

jmayo wrote: »

I have a friend who is very keen wildlife photographer and has had some of his kite/eagle pictures from Norway and Wales published in British photography/wildlife magazines.
He maintains the value of the Kites to the Welsh areas that they were introduced into has been immense in terms of the tourist numbers.
Same with Sea Eagles in Norway.
So why the bloody Irish cop on that these brids can bring in people to their areas and by extension jobs.

Undoubtedly these are immensely beautiful birds. Particularly, in my opinion, the kite.
However, apart from your friend's opinion, is there any evidence of the beneficial economic effect of these birds in Wales?

I could understand tourists coming here (although in ambiguous numbers) to see red kites - however, golden eagles and sea eagles? I would doubt it. Not only are these birds more common on the European mainland - norway itself has literally thousands more birds than we do - but in fact eagle spotting would not be a difficult pursuit in North America either. So again, I fail to see what is so special about Ireland, given our relatively tiny eagle population both now and into the projected future.

So do you think it is ok for farmers to poison these birds ?
Just answer that question please.

Are you even reading my posts? Not only am I opposed to their poisoning, I think that greater effort should be made to find out who is responsible for the poisoning than has already materialised, and that these individuals should be made to answer punitively for their actions.

I fail to understand why, in simply questioning the logical intelligence of this project, pointing out the problems with compensation schemes, or in pointing out huge and basic mistakes shown to have been made by some people outright in favour of the project, that someone might suggest or assume that i am in favour of raptor or eagle poisoning.

For Jesus's sake, all anyone is asking for is a bit of clarity on how intelligent this scheme is, and that certain people supporting it might just admit that golden eagles do take lambs and that this has been a significant feature of eagle conservation in other jurisdictions. I have not seen anybody on this thread suggest that poisoning is correct or wise.

Valuable or benefical. :rolleyes:
With thinking like that we wuld never have had any of the world's great national parks in the USA, Canada, Kenya, Tanzania, etc.

Is it really so much to ask that this scheme might be valuable or beneficial? It might perfectly be, of course, I am simply asking whether it is.

At the moment it appears that it is at least not economically beneficial, in fact it is expensive, largely publicly funded, and has no proven financial merits - but I remain open to persuasion nevertheless.

Hell as other poster mentioned we could start exterminating lots of people based on that premise as well.
Lets start with the unemployed after we go with the posters idea for the elderly.

Sigh.

As I already explained (seriously, read this thread, and then start replying to posts), I personally have no problems with positively discriminating in favour of humans. If you do not share this view, that's your personal opinion, to which you are also perfectly entitled.

As I also pointed out, the elderly and the unemployed to actually contribute financially to the state through their taxes (VAT, taxable incomes from pensions, other capital taxes and other consumer spending) as well as - particularly in the case of the elderly - being of social and political significance whether actively involved in local or national politics, political lobby groups, voluntary organisations, and so on.

Moreover, as I have already said, and I repeat for your own benefit, I wouldn't apply the same conditions to public expenditure towards our citizens or any vulnerable human beings in this society that I would expect to apply to, say, wild birds.

I bet the World Wildlife Fund can't wait for your Christmas contribution. :rolleyes:

I have an opinion which I have arrived at based upon the facts that I have provided in this thread. If you are unhappy with my opinion or the facts as they appear, then feel free to engage with me on that. But don't expect me to engage with sarcasm, it's pretty irrelevant what any poster here contributes to charity - the fact that I have no interest in donating to the WWF does not itself detract from any fact that I have presented.

Why did they fail to survive here?
Was it not because people hunted them to extinction just like has happened with extinct animals in most parts of the world.
You know it wasn't just some natural disaster (like the dinosuars) that led to them becoming extinct.

Again, read the thread. This is getting ridiculous. I have already indicated, more than once, that these birds were exterminated both through an increase in leisure pursuits such as hunting and shooting, as well as general frustration arising from the perception, real or otherwise, that birds of prey were significantly deleterious to livestock survival rates.

The problem is that the latter perception - whether you believe it is real or not - persists among farmers. Personally I believe that the golden eagle population do pose a minor threat to lambs based on current numbers, but it is not a serious threat. Presumably many farmers are aware of the predation mortality issues in Norway, as well as the inadequacy of the Norwegian compensatory scheme, and wish to step in to prevent the golden eagle population from growing.
The manner in which some farmers set out to achieve this end, is neither sound nor justifiable.
However, the absence of any Plan B to address their concerns and the failure of the state to bring these people to justice does, in my opinion, call into question the intelligence of the reintroduction project and th intelligence of those who came up with it in the first place as well as issues pertaining to its core value.

AFAIK the Norwegians are pi**ed off with us and are pulling their support.

They are pulling their support? Link?

Perhaps it is time the Irish taxpayer followed suit.