MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-19698139
I have met some good game keepers and also met some who were utter twunts, what possible motive is there for doing this?
Possible motives - to stop it taking lambs or young game birds, depending on where it is?
At this time of year?????? 🙄
Eagles live longer than one year 🙄 🙄
Yeah I guess how remiss of me to not understand please accept my humble apologies.
OK
Very good of you.
need to get the wolves back, keep them deer in check .
Seems pretty unsubstantiated to me. Yes, it could have been an illegal trap. Which may or may not have been set by a gamekeeper. It might have been set by a farmer with no intent of catching the eagle. Equally, it could have been a vehicle or a million and one other things.
Makes me really sad that somebody has gone to these
Lengths to try and kill a beautiful bird like this
I'm not an ornithologist but I do enjoy watching birds of prey
Hope they catch the scum who did this !!
dashed - read the report about the gps tracker and the movements. They know exactly where it happened and looks very likely that the bird was transported once injured in a car to a layby.
thegreatape - Member
Possible motives - to stop it taking lambs or young game birds, depending on where it is?
And this would be justification?
Lets be somewhat realistic. Eagles are hardly going to decimate the population of lambs,game birds or small children.
Total scumbags!
And this would be justification?
No. A motive isn't always justified.
Lets be somewhat realistic. Eagles are hardly going to decimate the population of lambs,game birds or small children.
The figures will vary depending on who you listen to of course, and then vary further depending on type of raptor, type of prey and location. A study by Stirling University estimated that the % loss from raptor predation for various combinations of predator/prey varied between 5 and 24%, so in some cases significantly worse than decimation.
The figures will vary depending on who you listen to of course, and then vary further depending on type of raptor, type of prey and location. A study by Stirling University estimated that the % loss from raptor predation for various combinations of predator/prey varied between 5 and 24%, so in some cases significantly worse than decimation.
what in the name of all thats holy are you talking about? Do you understand how % works?
significantly worse than decimation
What does that mean?
The proportion of the population of different species of game bird estimated to be lost to predation by different raptors varies between 5 and 24%, depending on what game bird, what raptor and what location, according to a study by Stirling University.
Eg. 5% of the population of game bird A are taken by raptor X in area 1.
Or 24% of game bird B are taken by raptor Y in area 2.
What does that mean?
That the losses, in some cases, are significantly worse than 10%. (Depends how you interpret decimation 😉 ).
Let's just remind ourselves that while "decimate" once meant to kill every tenth person or something along those lines, it is now taken to mean to destroy a large proportion of something. Y'know, in case anyone fancies themselves as a bit of a smartarse.
EDIT: Oh, it seems somebody has been checking dictionaries and then ninja editing.
Indeed, I only knew the [s]traditional[/s] [i]real[/i] definition until today 🙂
thegreatape have you got a link for this paper you're quoting?
So you really are saying killing Golden Eagles or any raptor is ok because they may or may not kill more than 10% of Grouse that are going to be shot for fun. You are a strange little man.
What do the statistics say about Golden Eagles taking lambs?
It's the original definition. It's been taken to mean "destroy a large proportion of" for a long long time. In fact, I've never known it to mean anything else in modern parlance; presumably to the annoyance of pedants. But generally, pedants aren't big fans of language evolving. 🙂
[url=
?[/url]
No pigface... He's trolling. He didn't ever say that it was OK he's just putting an argument out there to make people upset.
So you really are saying killing Golden Eagles or any raptor is ok because they may or may not kill more than 10% of Grouse that are going to be shot for fun. You are a strange little man.
Unless I missed something, he's never said it's ok, he's given reasons why people may do it. There's a pretty obvious difference.
You owe him an apology there really.
3rd post on the this page should cover it Mr Munro.
thegreatape have you got a link for this paper you're quoting?
This lady http://www.sbes.stir.ac.uk/people/park/ and scroll to the bottom, it's about half way down her list of publications, a 2008 one.
So you really are saying killing Golden Eagles or any raptor is ok because they may or may not kill more than 10% of Grouse that are going to be shot for fun.
No. Nowhere have a said it's ok. Since (a small) part of my job has involved prosecuting people who do it I think it's fair to say I'm against it.
You, in your opening post, wondered what motives people have for killing raptors. I told you what one of the motives is. It you have made the leap from me knowing why people do it to me condoning it, then that's a reflection on your ability to think.
You are a strange little man.
And you are what's known, up here, as a 'star'.
No pigface... He's trolling. He didn't ever say that it was OK he's just putting an argument out there to make people upset.
Get a grip. He asked why people do it. I told him.
How big are the respective populations of predators and prey and how big is the golden eagle population in Scotland? Also what species were these estmates based on?
Sorry, I genuinely don't know what you mean pigface.
3rd post: At this time of year??????
I'm guessing that you disagree with the motivations he's suggested. Why does this make him "a strange little man."
People on the whole don't kill things without motives. Whether the motives are reasonable or correct are a different matter entirely, but it might be more productive not to jump down the throats of people offering some of the possible motivations.
DD - quite. Borders on infuriating!
In the sky and twinkling brightly 😆 I will take that thanks. I too have worked on prosecutions of pigeon fanciers who have poisoned raptors and after interviewing them I still don't understand their motives.
Get a grip. He asked why people do it. I told him.
Possible misuse of the word "troll" but you haven't exactly avoided winding him up.
Anyway I'm enjoying looking at pine martins and reading about grouse predation so thanks.
Sorry 5th post. Well saying lambs and young game birds is a strange answer at this time of year, maybe I was taking it to literally.
You're welcome! Presumably the ulterior motive on the sporting estates is financial. Pigeon fanciers - who knows?
What I was getting at was that an eagle killed now can't take any lambs or birds next spring.
Perhaps the rolly eyes didn't help. (Although you started it). 😀
It's an interesting subject, and a bigger priority than you might realise for the police up here.
He may just be playing devils advocate which is fine there are two sides to any argument. This is purely the destruction of a creature in a horrible way and why to protect a business. What effect do these introduce species have on native insects and fauna when these birds are released on mass. It's a poor game keeper who doesn't embrace his environment because lets face it if they are in business does it not make sense to encourage people to come and see these beautiful birds bringing more money in the off shooting season. There are plenty of people out there who'd pay good money to see them!
Pigeon fanciers
When I was a lot younger I lived in a pub and men from the local pigeon club would occasionally talk about taking peregrine eggs. 🙁 Nasty sods. Glad peregrines are doing better these days.
anagallis_arvensis - MemberHow big are the respective populations of predators and prey and how big is the golden eagle population in Scotland?
Population of game birds- tons (red grouse population alone estimated at about 900,000). Population of sheep- bazillions (about 6.75 million in 2010). Population of golden eagles- estimated at 431 breeding pairs in 2010 (and slightly declining)
Similar thing here...
http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2011/06/13/derbyshire-gamekeeper-guilty-on-all-seven-charges/
Hope the twunt pays up all 17K.
Bad game keeping - simple! No need if all in 'relative' balanced harmony. (as much as one can be in 'managed' land of course)
Scumbags in my book.....
Northwind. Exactly so its unlikely 430 eagles are going to decimate the red grouse population and even more unlikely they will have any noticable affect on the population of lambs.
Bad game keeping - simple! No need if all in 'relative' balanced harmony.
It simply isn't bad gamekeeping. It is an illegal act. I don't know of too many altruistic businessmen who would stand by and watch up to 24% of their resources being taken without payment or recompence, so I do understand why it is done, but it isn't bad gamekeeping.
its unlikely 430 eagles are going to decimate the red grouse population and even more unlikely they will have any noticable affect on the population of lambs.
Well, if they live next door and it is all your lambs or grouse they take, then it would be very noticable indeed.
Its grouse shooting season
Its a buisness ,My next door neighbour is the keeper for langsett moor/cut gate there are some dubious tactics used to protect the shoot or profitibility of shoots country wide
There is also an understanding that certain creatures are classed as expendable in terms of cost of fine per financial loss of shoot in a lot of these cases they try to move the creature even temporarily to another patch if its of "value",believe me if it isn't of 'value" its life expectency can be the time taken to pull a trigger
Tootall. Hence my question about relative population sizes used to come up with those % estimates. If people throw about shite stats they should at least know what they are based on. We dont even know whatspecies they ate based on.
Then read the study that whoever was quoting stats got them from - there are two links to it on the first page. What you're asking is in there if you bother to read it.
I disagree with the whole gamekeepers are evil attitude...yes sometimes some of them do the odd daft thing however can you imagine what would happen if everyone just stopped controling our more prevalent preditors (which has been done for hundreds of years) obviously nobody wants to see anything wiped out but i think there has to be some controll?
People catching Golden Eagles and collecting Peregrine eggs?
There can only be one explanation - Waitrose preparing for Christmas 🙂
Unless CFH is redecorating?
TooTall - MemberWell, if they live next door and it is all your lambs or grouse they take, then it would be very noticable indeed.
As appealling as it is to imagine a sort of council scheme of golden eagles all in one place, claiming benefits and eating all the lambs out of the neighbouring field, I don't think it works quite like that.
Kenny I dont need to read the study to know that the stats they have quoted are meaningless in the context of what we are talking about. The fact that the person is using those stats in this context shows one thing they are either trying to deliberatly missinform or they have missinterpreted.
You'll have to explain that a bit more then because I'm not seeing why. I was expecting the link to be something from a gamekeepers association or something, and I'd have been sceptical as to the independence of it, but as far as I can see it's independent of either side in the killing eagles argument.
How have they misunderstood the stats? The research resulted in estimated percentages of game bird populations lost to birds of prey, which varies depending on prey type, predator type and location. In some circumstances it's quite high. That's all he's saying, as far as I can see.
The context of what we are talking about is that some people justify killing eagles because of how many game birds they kill, so the stats seem to me to be entirely relevant when the amount that they kill is part of that argument.
If you have 4 lambs its easy to kill 25% of them if you have 4 million its a bit harder but not if you have 1 million eagles.
If you have 4 lambs its easy to kill 25% of them
you also don't have much of sheep raising business.
if you have 4 million
then you probably don't live in Scotland, so golden eagles aren't much of a problem
As appealling as it is to imagine a sort of council scheme of golden eagles all in one place, claiming benefits and eating all the lambs out of the neighbouring field, I don't think it works quite like that.
you're right - they deal drugs and bling and get their posses, the red kites, to do the dirty so they is not connected, innit?
I dont need to read the study to know that the stats they have quoted are meaningless in the context of what we are talking about.
I don't see how you can possibly say if they're meaningless or not if you haven't bothered to look and consider them. Until then your just guessing or assuming.
[url= https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/23089 ]Do something about it then[/url]
Kenny I am not sure i can make it simpler.
need to get the wolves back, keep them deer in check
I don't think the deer are responsible for killing Golden Eagles 🙁
Was chatting about this with a falconer mate of mine earlier. He's possibly biased; he loves raptors. But on the other hand, his livelihood is pest control.
He's convinced that there's a correlation up north between sheep-farmers who take aggressive vermin-control approaches, and those who lose stock to eagles. The reason being, an eagle's default food source in scotland is hares and rabbits. However they're opportunists and will eat anything they can kill, if need be. (in mongolia, they hunt wolves with golden eagles- holy ****!)
So- kill their preferred prey and they'll take their second option off the menu.
Just throwing that in; tbh I don't have a clue either way but it seems pretty reasonable. What's maybe more controversial is that he reckons the sort of farmer that'll hire him to stamp out every last hare or rabbit on a hill is exactly the same sort of farmer that'll kill raptors.
Would eagles take grouse? Do they take many lambs? Remember most young lambs are not out on the fell. I never heard grumblings in the lakes when a pair were around. Having said that its unlikeely the eagle was specifically targetted.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
Kenny I am not sure i can make it simpler.
Evidently not.
I still don't see what you are objecting to - thegreatape quoted a credible source of information to support the argument that in some places raptors kill a significant amount of game birds. I've looked through the research he linked to can see no reason why it isn't valid, and it's hardly unusual to quote information as percentages for easy comparison.
From what you've posted, the fact that he lifted and quoted some percentages from the study seems to be the rationale for your objection - that the numbers used to calculate the percentages quoted [u]might[/u] be so small as to be meaningless, and therefore should be dismissed?
Perhaps I am stupid for crediting the researchers with a bit more intelligence and competence than that?
Or is it something else?
If you have 4 lambs its easy to kill 25% of them
I don't think any scientist/ecologist/whatever they are worth their salt would draw any meaningful conclusions from a sample that small.
if you have 4 million its a bit harder but not if you have 1 million eagles.
But to the gamekeeper or estate manager the number of eagles doesn't matter - their concern is what proportion of their stock they lose to the eagles, they don't care if it's one greedy eagle or a hundred moderate ones - if they're losing 10,000 birds to them they're losing 10,000 birds.
So, in the context of the thread, the number of predators doesn't matter - it's the extent of the loss of prey that those that justify killing the birds are interested in.
I suppose this comes back to my assumption that the researchers are competent and the figures used to draw their findings didn't come from stupidly small samples, but the information in the report supports that assumption.
Quite simply, there is no defense for the killing an animal/bird of prey, for going about its natural business. The utter monsters who go kill a creature for no reason but to protect their investment need a serious re-alignment of their view on the issues.
Its a top level predator, its going to go and eat things, thats what it does. If you're going to raise stupid amounts of its food, for your fun and profit. Don't be surprized if the predator thinks it can help itself.... Cos thats what it does, thats all it does !.
It pisses me off even more when one considers the compensation schemes that have been set-up to try to get the people responsible for this behaviour to let it go and claim for the loss. I'd happily see my tax money go to subsidize legitimate losses in order to prevent the killing of such creatures.
Piss boiling ?, yeah, thats about right !.
Raptors and significant amounts are the key terms. He quoted percentages of populations which without having an idea of population size is meaningless and does help us asses the amounts of birds killed. Its also only refers to raptors not eagles.
The numbers, upon which the percentages are based, are included or referenced within the research he linked to. As are the species studied, both prey and predators.
you do realise its not research that he linked to its a review dont you? It contains very little information about eagles and certainly doesnt appear to quote any research that suggests Eagles have any discernable impact on the populations of game birds. Indeed it does at one point suggest that eagles limit other rapters that would have an impact on gamebirds. So you see the figures quoted are pure shite in relation to the impact of eagles on populations of game birds.
What Solo said, end of.