Golden Eagle Attacking People in Norway (1 Viewer)

[Antik]

An eagle (or several?) has been attacking people on 4 occasions during the last few days in Norway.

Golden eagle attacks 20-month-old girl and 3 others in Norway, causing deep gouges: "It kept coming back"

The youong bird "likely had a behavioral disorder" that prompted the attacks, an eagle expert said.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Maljunulo]

Wow!

 

[vergan]

One of those rare instances when puting down a wild predator is completely justified.

 

[Scott98]

Gaia fighting back more & more these days....look at the orcas. Maybe the animals are finally waking up

 

[Farnboro John]

One of those rare instances when puting down a wild predator is completely justified.

Really? Count the humans in Norway and then count the Golden Eagles and tell me that the conservation value of any number of the humans to the planet is greater than one Golden Eagle from the latter's tiny population. One of those many instances when humans need to just get on with it, taking any avoidance or using protective shields if necessary, and let wildlife of scarce species also get on with it.

John

 

[Bubbs]

One of those rare instances when puting down a wild predator is completely justified.

Could the bird not have been put into a captive breeding programme somewhere in the world?

 

[vergan]

Could the bird not have been put into a captive breeding programme somewhere in the world?

To maybe spread whatever (i.e. genes) responsible of a quite undesirable behaviour?
Anyway, Are breeding programes of scandinavian golden eagle around? It is not that endangered...

 

[vergan]

Really? Count the humans in Norway and then count the Golden Eagles and tell me that the conservation value of any number of the humans to the planet is greater than one Golden Eagle from the latter's tiny population. One of those many instances when humans need to just get on with it, taking any avoidance or using protective shields if necessary, and let wildlife of scarce species also get on with it.

John

Of course, you will sit and comment eagle attacking your offspring, as it has little to no value compared with that of the eagle. In my case i know i will behave completely different to you. We humans are all different with different priorities and different respects for other humans life. I do still stand to support other's life.

BTW, enough problems are facing the eagles in Norway as there is pressure to implement culling programs on both golden and sea eagles to just sit and enjoy crazy eagles attacking humans.

 

[Dr.Boletus]

Really? Count the humans in Norway and then count the Golden Eagles and tell me that the conservation value of any number of the humans to the planet is greater than one Golden Eagle from the latter's tiny population

That is one truly vile and monstrous statement to make, John, and you should know better than that.

How would you feel if your infant son in his childhood was attacked by a bird which would be perfectly capable of killing you? Would you stand by and mutter about how important it is to the ecosystem, or sit back and let natural selection play a role?
I can certainly say that I would not have thought about its conservation value , at all, if I saw a child being attacked by it, and would have attacked the eagle in response. Sorry, but that is how most people operate because they know the value of a human life.

In 2021 I was in an area of Russia where bears are really rare and of huge conservation value. That (male) bear attacked and killed a young woman. Their companion alerted some hunters, who absolutely correctly and validly did not consider its conservation value when shooting and killing the beast.

If golden eagles had an eye for lambs, use compensation for farmers. But in the case of a human life, there really isn't much to be done other than immediately removing the bird from the wild before it kills anyone, as well as perhaps seeing what is causing the aggression and then re-releasing it somewhere remote (if not for this disgusting war I would have suggested Russia). That's how problematic bears are dealt with in the Arctic.

Note that I am not advocating for killing the birds- I really hope no eagle cull is ever announced in Norway, as that would just be preposterous. In fact, golden eagles are something I have been trying to see for years in the wild properly and finally succeeded last month for the first time, and are my absolute favourite animal. But removal of predators which have already proved dangerous to humans is necessary.

 

[Dr.Boletus]

One of those rare instances when puting down a wild predator is completely justified.

Or deporting it somewhere really remote. I hear Sutherland needs some eagles

 

[Farnboro John]

That is one truly vile and monstrous statement to make, John, and you should know better than that.

How would you feel if your infant son in his childhood was attacked by a bird which would be perfectly capable of killing you? Would you stand by and mutter about how important it is to the ecosystem, or sit back and let natural selection play a role?
I can certainly say that I would not have thought about its conservation value , at all, if I saw a child being attacked by it, and would have attacked the eagle in response. Sorry, but that is how most people operate because they know the value of a human life.

In 2021 I was in an area of Russia where bears are really rare and of huge conservation value. That (male) bear attacked and killed a young woman. Their companion alerted some hunters, who absolutely correctly and validly did not consider its conservation value when shooting and killing the beast.

If golden eagles had an eye for lambs, use compensation for farmers. But in the case of a human life, there really isn't much to be done other than immediately removing the bird from the wild before it kills anyone, as well as perhaps seeing what is causing the aggression and then re-releasing it somewhere remote (if not for this disgusting war I would have suggested Russia). That's how problematic bears are dealt with in the Arctic.

Note that I am not advocating for killing the birds- I really hope no eagle cull is ever announced in Norway, as that would just be preposterous. In fact, golden eagles are something I have been trying to see for years in the wild properly and finally succeeded last month for the first time, and are my absolute favourite animal. But removal of predators which have already proved dangerous to humans is necessary.

We've got to get away from our anthropocentric viewpoint in our stewardship of the planet and accept that we are as legitimate a prey animal as anything else. Humans are special is an outdated religion motivated severely damaging viewpoint.

John

 

[Dr.Boletus]

We've got to get away from our anthropocentric viewpoint in our stewardship of the planet and accept that we are as legitimate a prey animal as anything else. Humans are special is an outdated religion motivated severely damaging viewpoint.

John

That's not what I would feel if I saw someone get attacked, and neither will most others.
To many people, humans and humanity is special, and that will never change, at all.
And yes, humans are special. Emotionally, intellectually, and so on. You may deny it, but not many will agree with you.
And seeing some people equate the life of a human (who may well go on to become a scientist working to reverse the effects of climate change) to some bird which can simply be removed from there thus negating the genuine need of shooting it if it is found in the process of killing someone is practically unbelievable.

So, if you were to be attacked by a tiger, you wouldn't want anyone to intervene? Am I correct in saying you would rather die? Or see your wife die rather than help her?

And, before I get accused of being a raptor persecutionist, consider the fact that, had it been up to me, the gamekeeper who stamped 3 hen harrier chicks to death in I think Northumberland recently would have under me received 25 years in prison, and his family a nice £300,000 bill to pay.

 

[Farnboro John]

That's not what I would feel if I saw someone get attacked, and neither will most others.
To many people, humans and humanity is special, and that will never change, at all.
And yes, humans are special. Emotionally, intellectually, and so on. You may deny it, but not many will agree with you.
And seeing some people equate the life of a human (who may well go on to become a scientist working to reverse the effects of climate change) to some bird which can simply be removed from there thus negating the genuine need of shooting it if it is found in the process of killing someone is practically unbelievable.

So, if you were to be attacked by a tiger, you wouldn't want anyone to intervene? Am I correct in saying you would rather die? Or see your wife die rather than help her?

And, before I get accused of being a raptor persecutionist, consider the fact that, had it been up to me, the gamekeeper who stamped 3 hen harrier chicks to death in I think Northumberland recently would have under me received 25 years in prison, and his family a nice £300,000 bill to pay.

Personal isn't the same as important (Granny Weatherwax).

John

 

[mjh73]

Worth noting it's not unusual for attacked surfers, or the families of killed surfers, to advocate for there not to be a subsequent shark cull because there is an appreciation in some (not all) that sharks are endangered and humans (who are definitely not endangered) should accept some level of responsibility for the risk they take when they enter that environment.

 

[Trinovid]

Humans are special is an outdated religion motivated severely damaging viewpoint.

Offer up your own kin and leave the rest of us out of your 'all animals before humans' religiosity.

 

[Trinovid]

...if you were to be attacked by a tiger, you wouldn't want anyone to intervene? Am I correct in saying you would rather die? Or see your wife die rather than help her?

By his own statements it seems to stand somewhat apparent that he would gladly allow himself or others close to him perish rather than to be deemed guilty of anthropocentricity. Good for him then, I guess?

 

[Trinovid]

Worth noting it's not unusual for attacked surfers, or the families of killed surfers, to advocate for there not to be a subsequent shark cull because there is an appreciation in some (not all) that sharks are endangered and humans (who are definitely not endangered) should accept some level of responsibility for the risk they take when they enter that environment.

It's a good thing too, because the species should not anonymously take the brunt for what a single individual has done. Much different story on land too, and shark attacks cannot be equated to those of bears, lions or eagles, where the attacker is much more readily identified. And just as eagles or bears aren't just randomly taken out simply for being bears or eagles, neither should sharks.

 

[mjh73]

It's a good thing too, because the species should not anonymously take the brunt for what a single individual has done. Much different story on land too, and shark attacks cannot be equated to those of bears, lions or eagles, where the attacker is much more readily identified. And just as eagles or bears aren't just randomly taken out simply for being bears or eagles, neither should sharks.

Not quite true. Great-white and Tiger Sharks are uncommon around the coast and can often be readily identified post an attack. The argument I have seen is less 'we can't be sure' and more 'why would you? Leave it alone'

Your emotive language suggests an almost criminal intent on the part of the animal! The animal is doing what comes naturally to a large extent (preying on a large available block of protein).
Typically they would not go after humans and there are often a particular set of circumstances - often more due to human choices than the animals - that increase the risk. What possible gain is there in going after the 'perpetrator' - reducing an exceptionally rare occurrence to slightly more exceptionally rare?
Or is this primarily a vengeance reaction?

I agree with John that the "take it out!" attitude , even where an animal can be readily identified, is nonsense.

 

[mjh73]

Offer up your own kin and leave the rest of us out of your 'all animals before humans' religiosity.

I think human sacrifice is overtly religious generally....

 

[Trinovid]

Your emotive language...

Or is this primarily a vengeance reaction?

Where was there emotive language in my post, and what is this vengeance your talking about? Maybe you read some other content and then replied to me?

I agree with John that the "take it out!" attitude , even where an animal can be readily identified, is nonsense.

Why is it nonsense?