Eagles at Haweswater! (1 Viewer)

[Boom]

As the tallest dwarf in the world I believe irony to mean stuff with a lot of iron in it. :t:

My comments about size remain relevant. I can't believe a bloke who had to ask a warden whether juvenile eagles would be the same size as adults is being taken remotely seriously by any of the BF community. For the avoidance of doubt, no irony intended.

John

Exactly John, I was trying to politely steer this into the more logical explanation but it seems thats not possible.
The "evidence",as you mention, includes not knowing size of juvenile/adult birds, not knowing the location exactly where he was, evidently not knowing the potential size of an Eagle territory and including a Buzzard photograph to support the claim he was watching two Golden Eagles with lots of white patches on them. Finally, nobody else has seen these birds before or since, the wardens, volunteers, visitors or ramblers.
This is the evidence, but with comments like "I know what I saw" and "I've seen hundreds of Buzzards to know the difference" .........
Don't mean to be harsh but this is the evidence, and it's nothing to get excited about, mores the pity.

 

[Boom]

This is why it would be helpful if the OP could answer the question I asked in post 50. i.e which birds from your descriptions are the photos of.

Without wishing to tell someone else what they saw, perhaps the first encounter was the eagle seen on its own (pic 1), then later on you saw a pair of buzzards (one of which in pic 3) ? Given the extreme unlikeliness of the sighting you have to be realistic and explore every other possibility first.

This is exactly what I suspect, it's very easily done.

 

[dantheman]

I think may be a bit of one-bird theory going on too - a bird is seen (an eagle) more than once, but Buzzards are also inadvertently seen too, which helps mislead the observer as to what he is actually seeing.

 

[pdg330]

pdg330

Can you just confirm. Are the photos all of the same bird? and are they of one of the pair you saw or of the one lone individual you saw earlier in the day (hope that makes sense!)

The photos are all one of the pair seen in the afternoon. I did have a look at photos of immature white tailed eagles but I don't believe this is what we saw. The shape and colouration from below more like GE. I do have a few of the lone bird seen in the late morning and I have to assume it was one of the same birds seen in the afternoon. The lone bird also had white on the underbody and through binoculars it was very clear this was not a Buzzard, though I'm told the resident male does not have any white underneath him so again, this keeps pointing me towards juveniles, as rare as that may sound to many on here. I'm told juveniles are the same size as adults so that also adds weight to this theory. Does anyone have a good photo of the resident male showing his underbody?

Perhaps John, boom et al. (wrongly) assumed at least one of the 4 photos so far posted were from.the morning sighting. I confirm all were of one of a pair of birds seen in the afternoon.

 

[pdg330]

Farnborough John and Boom are welcome to their opinions. The second sighting involving the pair of birds closely resembled the morning sighting in terms of size. I also don't see what is so wrong (and im not alone in so doing) in seeking assistance on here as to possibilities of juvenile birds. John and boom clearly just like to put people down, perhaps because they werent afforded a similar sighting, who knows. Thanks to those confirming eagle in the afternoon photos. I'd be happy to PM some of the morning ones of the lone bird, though they are similar.

 

[pdg330]

Exactly John, I was trying to politely steer this into the more logical explanation but it seems thats not possible.
The "evidence",as you mention, includes not knowing size of juvenile/adult birds, not knowing the location exactly where he was, evidently not knowing the potential size of an Eagle territory and including a Buzzard photograph to support the claim he was watching two Golden Eagles with lots of white patches on them. Finally, nobody else has seen these birds before or since, the wardens, volunteers, visitors or ramblers.
This is the evidence, but with comments like "I know what I saw" and "I've seen hundreds of Buzzards to know the difference" .........
Don't mean to be harsh but this is the evidence, and it's nothing to get excited about, mores the pity.

Such assumptions, boom. Nowhere did I indicate I'm unaware of the size of an eagle's territory, rather I was talking in our terms, not the bird's - additionally, I knew exactly where I was thank you, and described as such, albeit not with the grid references you seem insistent on. Another poster has also revealed the deception that photos can present When taken from certain angles.

 

[Mickr]

Farnborough John and Boom are welcome to their opinions. The second sighting involving the pair of birds closely resembled the morning sighting in terms of size. I also don't see what is so wrong (and im not alone in so doing) in seeking assistance on here as to possibilities of juvenile birds. John and boom clearly just like to put people down, perhaps because they werent afforded a similar sighting, who knows. Thanks to those confirming eagle in the afternoon photos. I'd be happy to PM some of the morning ones of the lone bird, though they are similar.

I don't think either of the two people you mention like to put people down, I think they are just sceptical about your claims. I have an open mind yet still have my doubts about you having seen a pair of Eagles and I understand that it will be frustrating for you if you're correct.

 

[Boom]

It's your sighting I'm sceptical about, for all the reasons I've mentioned. You clearly didn't know where you were in relation to Riggindale, never heard of High Beck either. I have never asked for Grid References, just surprised you managed to miss Riggindale itself as it an enormous Fell side opposite where you parked.
You stated you were nowhere near Riggindale, I'm sure you'll forgive me for questioning this as I've previously stated a few times the potential importance of this sighting.
There isn't a birder who hasn't got it wrong, God knows I have over the years both here and in the Western Isles watching Eagles, I'm just surprised by the fact you watched the birds for at least an hour yet you were looking at photos of juvenile WTSE's to see what it was you'd seen. If, after an hours observation you weren't sure what it was you were watching,then how can you expect people not to question your decided upon identification?
I'm not envious or putting you down but surely you can see why some of us would be sceptical.
If you can't then that's the end of it and I congratulate you on a special sighting and there's nothing left to say personally on the matter.

 

[Farnboro John]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201107/you-end-believing-what-you-want-believe

John

 

[pdg330]

It's your sighting I'm sceptical about, for all the reasons I've mentioned. You clearly didn't know where you were in relation to Riggindale, never heard of High Beck either. I have never asked for Grid References, just surprised you managed to miss Riggindale itself as it an enormous Fell side opposite where you parked.
You stated you were nowhere near Riggindale, I'm sure you'll forgive me for questioning this as I've previously stated a few times the potential importance of this sighting.
There isn't a birder who hasn't got it wrong, God knows I have over the years both here and in the Western Isles watching Eagles, I'm just surprised by the fact you watched the birds for at least an hour yet you were looking at photos of juvenile WTSE's to see what it was you'd seen. If, after an hours observation you weren't sure what it was you were watching,then how can you expect people not to question your decided upon identification?
I'm not envious or putting you down but surely you can see why some of us would be sceptical.
If you can't then that's the end of it and I congratulate you on a special sighting and there's nothing left to say personally on the matter.

I've been to Riggindale on the 3 previous occasions I was up there. FWIW we were on our way there for a 4th time until I suddenly spotted the bird from the first footbridge high up on a ridge (I am yet to post any photos of the morning sighting but can happily do so). Why would I just want to carry onto Riggindale on seeing the bird well before the hide? I know exactly where it is, i.e. the valley where the hide is. High Beck, as opposed to Riggindale Beck, is the beck that runs down the left hand valley from the first footbridge (going away from the car park). I was looking at other possibilities through photos later on for comparison, not at the time - it was more for confirmation. I stand by what it was that I saw. Not once did I say I wasn't sure what it was that I was watching, so I'm not sure where you got that from either.

I agree that there isn't much left to say on the matter, and I have had people who have contacted me through here that don't dispute the claims and wanted further information. Perhaps one day someone else will be afforded a similar sighting, which I really hope, and I won't be ridiculed on two observations that were nothing like buzzards (we had binoculars I should point out again).

It remains that the 4 photos posted were of one of a pair of birds sighted in the afternoon. The first photo in particular, as several people have already pointed out, looks nothing like buzzard.

 

[Adam W]

It remains that the 4 photos posted were of one of a pair of birds sighted in the afternoon. The first photo in particular, as several people have already pointed out, looks nothing like buzzard.

In fairness it would be equally valid to say that the 4th photo as several people have already pointed out looks nothing like an Eagle and very much like a Buzzard so If as you say all 4 photo's are of the same bird then at best I don't think anything meaningful can be read into the photo's.

 

[Boom]

I'm not giving you a platform to suggest more ridicule or "put downs" for having the temerity to suggest you were mistaken after reading your comments.
I'm glad you saw your new pair of Golden Eagles at Haweswater.

 

[Boom]

In fairness it would be equally valid to say that the 4th photo as several people have already pointed out looks nothing like an Eagle and very much like a Buzzard so If as you say all 4 photo's are of the same bird then at best I don't think anything meaningful can be read into the photo's.[/

One of the pair apparently Adam, hope this doesn't qualify as a "put down"."........

 

[Craig H]

Presumably a sighting like this would need to be submitted as a County Rarity? Will be interesting to see their take on it when supported by the relevant field notes, photos etc.

 

[Amarillo]

The photos are all one of the pair seen in the afternoon. I did have a look at photos of immature white tailed eagles but I don't believe this is what we saw. The shape and colouration from below more like GE. I do have a few of the lone bird seen in the late morning and I have to assume it was one of the same birds seen in the afternoon. The lone bird also had white on the underbody and through binoculars it was very clear this was not a Buzzard, though I'm told the resident male does not have any white underneath him so again, this keeps pointing me towards juveniles, as rare as that may sound to many on here. I'm told juveniles are the same size as adults so that also adds weight to this theory. Does anyone have a good photo of the resident male showing his underbody?

Perhaps John, boom et al. (wrongly) assumed at least one of the 4 photos so far posted were from.the morning sighting. I confirm all were of one of a pair of birds seen in the afternoon.

Thanks for the response.

Shame it doesn't help us as one of the birds looks like an eagle, another looks like a buzzard...

Guess we'll never know, but in the absense of evidence I'm afraid we can only assume that you have misidentified the birds. Personally at times like this I always assume I was wrong. If you weren't, someone else WILL see them and photograph them.

I know some on here have not been very tactful, but no-one wants to put you down. At the end of the day everyone desperately wants you to be right, but no-one can simply take your word for it based on a couple of inconclusive photos. Thats just the way it is.

 

[halftwo]

but in the absense of evidence I'm afraid we can only assume that you have misidentified the birds.



Oh dear.
In the absence of evidence we could assume he didn't misidentify the birds.
I guess the jury works the opposite way when it comes to birding.

 

[Farnboro John]

but in the absense of evidence I'm afraid we can only assume that you have misidentified the birds.

Oh dear.
In the absence of evidence we could assume he didn't misidentify the birds.
I guess the jury works the opposite way when it comes to birding.

But there isn't an absence of evidence. It is clear from the observer's writings that he has no idea about the markings of eagles of any species of any age, or the size of eagles of different ages. He insists that a photograph that clearly shows a Buzzard relates to one of the birds in his sighting of two birds which he thinks were eagles. Ergo, he hasn't seen a pair of eagles, though he clearly has been shown the adult male Golden Eagle by the warden at Riggindale, so at least he has a legitimate tick.

I am stating that he has misidentified the birds. There is nothing wrong in that, particularly for an inexperienced observer. But telling him that there is benefit of the doubt to be had when the evidence clearly points to the opposite would be doing him no favours.

John

 

[Spidermike]

This post from last week mentions one eagle being mobbed by buzzards.

http://www.manchesterbirding.activeboard.com/t11710928/haweswater-and-environs-golden-eagle/

There are several travel companies using 'the only golden eagle in England' as a bait for customers. Would they pass the chance of advertising "Woohoo! A pair!!"

 

[dogbreath]

It might be the RSPB is being a bit circumspect about a pair being in the area. It would not be the first time the "powers that be" have not publicised sightings.

 

[Boom]

It might be the RSPB is being a bit circumspect about a pair being in the area. It would not be the first time the "powers that be" have not publicised sightings.

Not in this case. When the area the birds were spotted in can be seen from the car park that is used by people visiting the watch point.
Admittedly if there was a new pair that wasn't particularly known about then they may keep it quiet until established. A new pair at Haweswater would be nothing but beneficial for the RSPB there, although I suspect the car parking could become a bit of a lottery!