Sea eagles taking lambs in Sutherland and Skye, crofters say (1 Viewer)

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-18519232

Crofters in Sutherland and on Skye have raised fresh concerns about white-tailed sea eagles taking young lambs.

Sea eagles, the UK's largest bird of prey, were extinct in Britain by the early years of the 20th Century.

David Forbes, who crofts near Kinlochbervie, said the birds had been re-introduced into an environment very different from 100 years ago.

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) offers payments to crofters who claim the birds have killed livestock.

A spokesman said it had not been envisaged that re-introducing sea eagles would become such an issue for crofters.

Duncan Orr-Ewing, RSPB Scotland's head of species and land management, said studies suggested that the birds took "very small numbers" of live lambs during a short period of the year.

Sutherland crofter Mr Forbes told BBC Alba fish eaten by the eagles were no longer as abundant as they were before the species became extinct in Britain.

He said populations of birds such as red throated divers and curlews around Kinlochbervie, and its harbour, had disappeared because of sea eagles.

Mr Forbes added: "This harbour didn't exist 100 years ago so there were fish - herring and haddock.

"The herring and haddock are not there any more. The fishing boats from here now fish west of Lewis to St Kilda and Rockall.

"It is a totally different environment. It is a fragile environment."

'Minimum impact'
In recent years, crofters in Wester Ross and Skye have complained of sea eagles attacking young lambs.

The results of study commissioned by SNH and published in May 2010, suggested the birds have a "minimum impact" on lambs' chances of survival.

The fortunes of selected lambs in three flocks in Wester Ross were monitored to help determine whether large numbers of livestock fall prey to the raptors.

SNH said the study of lambs in Gairloch suggested less than 2% of lambs' deaths were directly linked to the birds.

Mr Orr-Ewing said: "The sea eagle is a relatively scarce species, which brings other tangible benefits to the Scottish economy through green tourism.

"It is a legal requirement that serious damage is proven, and that alternative non-lethal solutions are pursued.

"The SNH management scheme is a more appropriate mechanism for meeting these criteria."

 

[Nightranger]

Not exactly news in the strictest sense, this story has been rumbling on for a few years but it is interesting to see a bit more of an acknowledgement that WTSEs are taking some live lambs. However, the comments about fish and other potential prey and effects on populations probably need a little further clarification. I doubt if WTSEs would be agile enough to make a difference to curlews although they could be a danger to divers. The problem here is that both species are in decline and that can mean both can disappear from certain haunts in very short order assuming the observations are accurate. The other part of this story that bothers me is the statement about herring and haddock which, whilst true, paints an incomplete picture because WTSEs will take anything from mullet to mackerel to sea trout and salmon. Equally, WTSEs are taking gulls and these are not showing any signs of population stress as a result of this predation.

Personally, I have worried about the reintroduction of WTSEs but the fact that crofters are getting comnpensation for any lambs lost (assuming this is easy to claim) is a bit of reassurance. It would be worrying if the predation on lambs was any higher than the 2% quoted here because this would clearly indicate the eagles were not suited to the environment and wild prey was totally inadequate for their needs.

 

[JTweedie]

Hopefully they're not responsible for the decline of the house sparrow either.

 

[Amarillo]

It would be worrying if the predation on lambs was any higher than the 2% quoted here because this would clearly indicate the eagles were not suited to the environment and wild prey was totally inadequate for their needs.

Not necessarily - there might well be enough wild prey, but sometimes predators will go for the easier option!

At the end of the day predators were wiped out because they take livestock. If we want to reintroduce them, and of course we should, we have to accept that livestock will be lost again.

Compensation is a good way of making it acceptable to those whose livelihoods depend on it.

 

[tperry]

And the report seems to indicate that the 2% relates to total of lambs' deaths not total number of lambs - if so really fairly minimal, but significant, no doubt, to the crofters concerned.

Tony

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

I have often wondered if compensating crofters/farmers directly for losses attributed to eagles is the right way to resolving the conflict. There are obviously a number of ways in which a lamb can die and if only one of them is likely to generate compensation then there must be an understandable desire to attribute as many lamb deaths to that particular cause as possible and ensure the profile is maintained in the media so that no one thinks about cutting the scheme.

I'll confess to not knowing exact visitor numbers, no of crofters etc but I wonder if a simple 'Tourist Tax' levied at the point of entry to the islands might not be a better way of building up a fund that is then distributed amongst crofters. A level £1 per person for non-residents with exemptions for business/deliveries etc might generate more than a few quid to share out amongst registered crofters and who would object to a quid on a visit in order to maintain White-tailed Eagles and the crofting traditions?

 

[Nightranger]

Not necessarily - there might well be enough wild prey, but sometimes predators will go for the easier option!

I am not completely convinced by this argument if it is levelled at an entire species but you are right in a sense. It is sometimes the work of what we used to call 'rogue' individuals that discover an easy food source. The species as a whole continues to take natural food because that is what it is evolved to do although there can be a switch to easier targets when natural food is in short supply. My concern with WTSEs was the amount of captive-rearing that was involved even though human contact was kept to a minimum. Natural behaviour is sometimes suppressed in captive-rearing and this is seen in the feral barnacle, greylag and Canada geese, as none of them migrate substantially even though their all-wild counterparts do. This almost certainly is true for diets and a lot of the free-flying eagle owls are not really taking the same prey as their continental cousins (perhaps fortunately for the birds themselves). Bringing all this together, it is whether the atypical diet of a minority of individuals is causing significant impact on an agricultural interest that is a key element in this case.

 

[Nightranger]

I have often wondered f the compensating crofters/farmers directly for losses attributed to eagles is the right way to resolving the conflict. There are obviously a number of ways in which a lamb can die and if only one of them is likely to generate compensation then there must be an understandable desire to attribute as many lamb deaths to that particular cause as possible and ensure the profile is maintained in the media so that no one thinks about cutting the scheme.

I'll confess to not knowing exact visitor numbers, no of crofters etc but I wonder if a simple 'Tourist Tax' levied at the point of entry to the islands might not be a better way of building up a fund that is then distributed amongst crofters. A level £1 per person for non-residents with exemptions for business/deliveries etc might generate more than a few quid to share out amongst registered crofters and who would object to a quid on a visit in order to maintain White-tailed Eagles and the crofting traditions?

This is a very good point Alan, and I am sure there is a way of assessing the claims. Unfortunately, the problems often come when there is an automatic system of assessment because it can tip either way. An automatic system operates on something akin to a count-back and this can lead to both dishonest claims being credited and to under-compensation because it is only built around an average situation and assumes nothing will change.

The idea of a 'Tourist Tax' is not such a bad one because something similar operates (or has in the past) with the ospreys, as discussed on the RSPB 'buzzard' thread. It is a pity that a few more rural businesses do not wake up to the possibilities of limited and non-invasive eco-tourism. Unfortunately, even eco-tourism is getting a bad name at the moment and not just for air miles, as some of you may have picked up if you follow Mark Avery's blog. Nevertheless, people are still going to travel whatever born-again cyclists say (cheeky reference there! :smoke and it seems to be eminently sensible to link this into a way of generating money for local rural schemes whether that is farming that is inadvertently providing food for wildlife or to actual ecological projects providing local work. It is never going to be huge in revenue terms but like a lot of things, something is better than nothing.

 

[chris butterworth]

David Forbes, who crofts near Kinlochbervie, said the birds had been re-introduced into an environment very different from 100 years ago.

That's true. There are probably fewer people crofting now, less reliance on, and usage of, extremely toxic pesticides and more scientific knowledge as opposed to predudice.

Mr Forbes added: "This harbour didn't exist 100 years ago so there were fish - herring and haddock.

So, those damn Eagles have overfished the area as well????

"It is a legal requirement that serious damage is proven, and that alternative non-lethal solutions are pursued.

Another attack on "country folk who know better than all these scientists sitting in their labs". How dare the law require proof :C

Back to the question in hand. Predators will always impact on some sections of farming in Britain, we're only a small country. The extra income an area gains from tourism well offsets the minimal effects of predation - in other words " Live with it!".

Chris

 

[MJB]

That's true. There are probably fewer people crofting now, less reliance on, and usage of, extremely toxic pesticides and more scientific knowledge as opposed to prejudice.
Another attack on "country folk who know better than all these scientists sitting in their labs". How dare the law require proof :C
Back to the question in hand. Predators will always impact on some sections of farming in Britain, we're only a small country. The extra income an area gains from tourism well offsets the minimal effects of predation - in other words " Live with it!". Chris

Chris,
I don't really disagree with your points, yet here is an opportunity for a thorough analysis to be carried out involving the people who perceive a threat so that accusations can't be hurled afterwards from either the academic or the sheep-farmers' position. DEFRA must have the money that they aren't spending on Buzzard nest destruction, mustn't they?o
MJB

 

[JTweedie]

Chris,
DEFRA must have the money that they aren't spending on Buzzard nest destruction, mustn't they?o
MJB

As a devolved matter, surely DEFRA wouldn't have a say in these reintroductions?

 

[Nightranger]

Chris,
I don't really disagree with your points, yet here is an opportunity for a thorough analysis to be carried out involving the people who perceive a threat so that accusations can't be hurled afterwards from either the academic or the sheep-farmers' position. DEFRA must have the money that they aren't spending on Buzzard nest destruction, mustn't they?o
MJB

It would be Scottish Natural Heritage rather than DEFRA but some dedicated research would be good for the entire subject. The only slight reservation I have is that the small number of WTSEs is not going to produce the datasets that are normally required for peer-reviewed publications (unless you are...no...that would ne naughty! LOL). This begs the question of whether a specific research project would be economically viable or whether the data should be collected on shorter term project basis.

 

[Capercaillie71]

some dedicated research would be good for the entire subject.

Here is some:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47060/0014566.pdf

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B603609.pdf

 

[Nightranger]

Here is some:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47060/0014566.pdf

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B603609.pdf

We definitely neeed a FB-style like option to save the trouble of me typing - Thanks Capercaillie. 3

 

[saluki]

I am not completely convinced by this argument if it is levelled at an entire species but you are right in a sense. It is sometimes the work of what we used to call 'rogue' individuals that discover an easy food source. The species as a whole continues to take natural food because that is what it is evolved to do although there can be a switch to easier targets when natural food is in short supply.

I'd partly agree with that - a falconer would term such behaviour as the raptor becoming 'wedded' to a certain prey species. It isn't neccessarily an easy food supply however, some individuals simply become adept at taking certain prey. It may be that an eyass's first successes when hunting was with that species, so it continues to hunt them as a preference. I've mentioned before on BF of a small peregrine tiercel I knew that would, whenever possible, seek out hooded crows. It would fly through flocks of easier prey (such as woodpigeon, rooks and jackdaws) to take out a hoody. For it's troubles it often took a beating - hoodies tend to hang about in loose family groups and it was by no means unusual for the rest of the family to turn up and help out if one of it's members got caught.

This behaviour is probably the reason why crofters suffer different levels of lamb predation, as most eagles generally don't see lambs as a potential meal (this applies to other predators such as foxes too in my experience), whereas the odd individual does. Likewise, one gamekeeper may suffer large losses of pheasant poults in release pens to buzzards, whereas a neighbouring 'keeper has no problems whatsoever, even though buzzard populations in the two areas are similar.

My concern with WTSEs was the amount of captive-rearing that was involved even though human contact was kept to a minimum. Natural behaviour is sometimes suppressed in captive-rearing and this is seen in the feral barnacle, greylag and Canada geese, as none of them migrate substantially even though their all-wild counterparts do. This almost certainly is true for diets and a lot of the free-flying eagle owls are not really taking the same prey as their continental cousins (perhaps fortunately for the birds themselves). Bringing all this together, it is whether the atypical diet of a minority of individuals is causing significant impact on an agricultural interest that is a key element in this case.

I'm not sure escapee raptors (or birds bred in the wild from escapees) have different diets than wild birds Ian? The Bowland eagle owls, for instance, feed largely on rabbits I think, which makes sense as the area they nest in abounds with rabbits. Eagle owls feed on a large variety of prey, I haven't heard of anything being taken that wild birds on the continent wouldn't kill?

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[Marcus Conway - ebirder]

Here is some:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47060/0014566.pdf

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B603609.pdf

Thanks.
I don't think there is any contention that White Tailed Eagles predate lambs as documented so thanks for sharing. I believe anyone who spends a considerable amount of time on Mull in may can witness this behaviour when looking in certain places. The behaviour can be witnessed by adults and a range of juveniles and 'groups' of Eagles.

Anecdotally my observation would be that lambs are shepherded less well as farmers will get paid whether they (lambs) are successful or not. Therefore it is in the farmers interest to promote this type of predation as occurring frequently to ensure the compensation scheme remains in place.

Does anyone know how the compensation scheme works?

 

[Capercaillie71]

Does anyone know how the compensation scheme works?

The scheme does not provide direct compensation for lamb losses to sea eagles (which are difficult to prove), but is more to do with improving sheep management around sea eagle nests (more active shepherding /animal health measures etc.) with the aim that improvements in lamb productivity will outweigh any losses to sea eagles

http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B869194.pdf

 

[Alan Tilmouth]

Looking at the details of the scheme I struggle to see how anyone who had the motivation to get involved could possibly be worse off as a result of lamb losses.
So is it just a case of too much effort required for some?