The extirpation of eagles from Scotland (windfarms again) (1 Viewer)

[Andrew Rowlands]

That sounds like pre-windfarm 'best scenario' guesswork; doesn't tie in very well to what's been reported from a windfarm in Norway - big decline in the number of WTE's there.

Any displacement of birds might lead to increased persecution - those birds wouldn't be counted as windfarm related mortalities, would they?

How are these habitats going to be 'improved' by the erection of windfarms?

And no obvious mention of the cumulative effect of all the windfarms that are already at the planning stage in Scotland, should they be built.

How many regular surveys are currently in progress at existing Scottish windfarms? How often - daily, weekly, ten times a year? What are they looking for?

 

[Robert L Jarvis]

It is not just about WTE but Golden, other raptors that are resident or breed, seabirds, breeding waders and divers. Far from the effect of collisions it is also a question of the siting such as on Lewis which can deprive birds of the breeding environment or feeding areas.

I think far too may of the posts and I have been reading are more to do with point scoring rather than the conservation issue. I think many of you should be ashamed for adopting playground antics.

I wonder how people would feel if the Lewis project was dropped and instead place the turbines from Holme to Winterton with out any break that is a continuous line or are you suddenly going to become nimbeys.

Well if it is in Norfolk it will only affect a few passerine migrants, migrating waders (we have enough of them so what).

 

[savethebirds]

That sounds like pre-windfarm 'best scenario' guesswork; doesn't tie in very well to what's been reported from a windfarm in Norway - big decline in the number of WTE's there. ?

Or California or anywhere.

Sounds as if the writer's interest is more in the world of turbines than in the world of birds. Anyone who loves birds would be more interested in pursuing other alternative energies which are less damaging to birds, rather than fervent support of the blades of lethal wind turbines.

It just doesn't make sense for anyone who loves birds to promote wind turbines.

Other alternatives are not being allowed to flourish with this sort of fanatical support from the bird world.

Either money is clouding the issue or perhaps something more simple. Perhaps such people's interest lie in other areas such as the world of energy and not birds.

Or maybe its worse: like arsonists, perhaps such people like to sit back and enjoy watching and looking at the effects of their work.

How many regular surveys are currently in progress at existing Scottish windfarms? How often - daily, weekly, ten times a year? What are they looking for?

More dead eagles of course.

 

[Edward woodwood]

1) It just doesn't make sense for anyone who loves birds to promote wind turbines.


2) Perhaps such people's interest lie in other areas such as the world of energy and not birds.

3) Or maybe its worse: like arsonists, perhaps such people like to sit back and enjoy watching and looking at the effects of their work.

1) you show a very narrow interest in birds on bird forum - eagles and wind farms. Others have a wider interest and are very perturbed by the much more serious problems global warming will produce in other areas

2) lets have some evidence then, just one name will do, otherwise loony

3) plain loony

we also have turbines already at Winterton. And just south too, at Scroby

why not have a look at the damage done to birds (and people too) by the oil and energy industry as it is, and develop some perspective and a wider view of the world

http://www.amazonwatch.org/

Tim

 

[savethebirds]

1) you show a very narrow interest in birds on bird forum - eagles and wind farms.

For birdforum, that's my interest at present.

Others have a wider interest and are very perturbed by the much more serious problems global warming will produce in other areas

and you assume that I am not interested? I'm probably more active than some. Conservation is much more important to me. More important than many other threads on this forum, but then again a good service provider will cater for all tastes.

2) lets have some evidence then, just one name will do, otherwise loony

You know, there are many, many others set up on this forum in the same format as me but you know, what's most interesting is the steady constant effort by certain people, usually using PM, to try and flush me out.

Am I hitting too many raw nerves?

3) plain loony

Such childish comments. This is water off a duck's back as far as I am concerned.

why not have a look at the damage done to birds (and people too) by the oil and energy industry as it is, and develop some perspective and a wider view of the world

http://www.amazonwatch.org/

Tim

I have, but you know, these damaging oil companies, these huge polluters of the environment have suddenly become all green and are now supposedly our saviours? Those very same oil companies in the link with their offshoot 'wind' companies.

Their ongoing damaging activities have now been wholly embraced by some charities: people who are entrusted to protect birds and wildlife. Yes look at the link, see the damage. Now, think for one moment here, when any charity encourages their membership to sign up with wind, how powerful is that database to a major polluter? Way out of depth here. Never under estimate the power of such large companies and how they will use such data to peddle their green perceptions. Never, of course their actions, the longer that's hidden the better. We all find out their activities often years later. We all know now about Enron and the others.

I re-iterate, the damage continues, the fanatical stance in the bird world stiffles other less damaging renewables. Anyone promoting the wind stance in Eagle habitats deserves to pack up, leave the bird world and look for a job with those 'dear green companies' whose products kill birds.

 

[London Birder]

pack up and leave the bird world ..... lmaooooo, you're really quite funny !

 

[Edward woodwood]

if you insist on accusing professionals of the things you have done, then back it up

like i say, one name will do

and your point three is absolutely scandalous, loony is too polite

as for the second half of your last post i think i will refrain from speaking and let it stand for all to see

you seem to have a lot of ravelled up strands in your thinking, mostly admirable but you need to unravel them and make some sense rather than trying to link all your demons together as if it's a big conspiracy.

Tim
by the way folks, i've never PMed him/her. (As if i'm that bothered..ha.ha.ha) It does seem to read like that....

 

[Edward woodwood]

I have, but you know, these damaging oil companies, these huge polluters of the environment have suddenly become all green and are now supposedly our saviours? Those very same oil companies in the link with their offshoot 'wind' companies.

Their ongoing damaging activities have now been wholly embraced by some charities: people who are entrusted to protect birds and wildlife. Yes look at the link, see the damage.

i know this is a free forum and all that but how long is this rubbish going to be allowed to be posted? Who are these bird charities 'wholly embracing' the onging damaging activites of the oil companies?

stop undermining decent people

you're not right mate

Tim

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

On-topic comments would be appreciated folks.

No comments/opinions on my reply to your earlier post, Tim?

Am I too loony for you to reply to?

 

[Edward woodwood]

On-topic comments would be appreciated folks.

No comments/opinions on my reply to your earlier post, Tim?

Am I too loony for you to reply to?

no, just got a million things to do before i leave for Mr Jos's

you make some valid but wide ranging points, none of which negates anything written by Mr Moore in his refutation of Mark's model

maybe we should be finding out/pressing for that habitat enhancement/creation as a sweetener for SOME of the wind farms. That way we could all win.

Tim

 

[savethebirds]

i know this is a free forum and all that but how long is this rubbish going to be allowed to be posted? Who are these bird charities 'wholly embracing' the onging damaging activites of the oil companies?

stop undermining decent people

you're not right mate

Tim

Open your eyes. All the big boys are involved in wind or hadn't you noticed. White water energy = Shell Wind, Noordzee, BP Wind, Chevron/Texaco Wind, Exxon Mobil Wind, Marathon Oil, GE Wind. Their tenticles stretch further than perhaps you realise.

Sorry but this one really gave me a laff.

Behind the innocent name there's usually a big oil company behind it. Afterall you admited in an earlier post that your understanding of the business world was zero and your above post explains that very nicely for all to see.

So back to what I was saying, the wind turbines kill eagles dead. Nothing too difficult in that to understand is there? Or maybe in your case it is.

It is now increasingly important that Wind Companies become more transparent. Publish what you Pay. That would be really interesting. Might flush out a few pro windy folk on this site.


Still haven't seen your response to Andy Rowlands...or is everyone a loony in your eyes?

 

[Edward woodwood]

Still haven't seen your response to Andy Rowlands...or is everyone a loony in your eyes?

look above

i've only called one person a loony today, and another in the past.

I take it from the ridiculous comments above that you use nothing derived from oil and fight vehemently to have every petrol station closed down then?

Tim

 

[savethebirds]

look above

A cross post, dafty.

i've only called one person a loony today, and another in the past.

I take it from the ridiculous comments above that you use nothing derived from oil and fight vehemently to have every petrol station closed down then?
Tim

You haven't admitted that the oil companies are behind wind. So based on your previous link, they destroy forests and now you want them to extend their other activities into more remote areas with the new fad wind farms.

Why are you so fanatical about lethal blades in Eagle territories?

Love birds? You really are kidding yourself. You decide. The birds or Wind Power. Other renewables, perhaps but not lethal blades. There's really something wrong in your thinking. :stuck:

The victory will be when the Eagles' territories are safe.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

You haven't admitted that the oil companies are behind wind. So based on your previous link, they destroy forests and now you want them to extend their other activities into more remote areas with the new fad wind farms.

I don't know how true it is because there doesn't seem to be any evidence being put forward, but check out post #1144 on this thread.
If there is any substance in it at all then it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms.

 

[dbradnum]

Who are these bird charities 'wholly embracing' the onging damaging activites of the oil companies?

Savethebirds - could you answer the above please? You mentioned these charities; now I'd like to be enlightened and hear who they are, and what you base the statement on.

Also, has it ever crossed your mind that someone who argues with you over some points might possibly agree with you over many others? Have you ever heard of trying to find the common ground, or gently influencing others to support or at least respect your point of view?

 

[nirofo]

no opinions from me

just passing on comments from two ornithologists already made in the public domain

try
http://www.surfbirds.com/phorum/read.php?f=6&i=6031&t=6026

and try this for a refutation: (just cos Mr Duchamp says no one has refuted it, doesn't make it so). From Mr Moore as above, already available in the public domain

Rather than deal in hyperbole and pseudo-science,
let's look at what we know about the Scottish golden
eagle population. We know there are now between 400
and 450 territorial pairs and we know that Scottish
golden eagles reproduce annually somewhere between .30
chicks per territorial pair and .70 chicks per
territorial pair. The population is approximately at
equilibrium, which means that annually about as many
eagles die as are born.

Yes let's not deal in hyperbole and pseudo-science, A pair of Golden Eagles don't manage to rear 0.70 young every year, in fact some years they don't manage any young at all, there are many factors that determine the success or otherwise of the pair, weather plays a large part, food availability another. The population has barely changed for years although there are suitable areas in many places where spare birds could set up territories, but shepherds and bad keepers keep them out. Many of these areas were previously Eagle territories historically. It takes on average 5 years for adult Golden Eagles to reproduce one young to breeding success, many of the young that are produced will never find an unoccupied territory in their lifetime and will probably die of old age (or other), without ever having bred! If the number of territories available are reduced even further, then even more birds will die without breeding.
_____________________

Let's put this into real numbers, using a
hypothetical, but reasonable figure of 420 territorial
pairs and .5 chicks per pair produced per year. That
means that 210 baby eagles are produced each year, and
a population at approximate equilibrium will then lose
about the same number of birds, or 210 fatalities per
year.

Quote from a recent Raptor report for 2005:

Golden Eagle:
Argyll - Only 5 young reared.

Central Scotland - Only 3 young reared

Dumfries and Galloway - None reared.

Highland - 15 young fledged.

Tayside - 2 successfull.

Uist - A total of 8 young reared.

Total = 33 young fledged!

If we are generous and add say another 200% for other areas and missed nests etc, it still makes the total young fledged far less than the 210 quoted.
_____________________

The loss of two or three, or even twenty or thirty
birds to wind turbines does not necessarily result in
extirpation by any means. Are the wind turbine
fatalities additive to natural mortality or
compensatory; in other words, how many eagles that die
from turbine collisions would have died from other
causes, including persecution, accidents during the
pre-adult period, starvation, or any one of a number
of other possible causes?

So we are to condone and accept the loss of 30 Eagles to wind turbines are we, is that the total for the so-called 25 year life span of thousands of turbines or is it the annual cull rate. I would think adding the natural fatalities of adult Eagles to this cull rate would be insignificant, a Golden Eagle who has a reasonable territory with a reasonable food supply could expect to live for 30 years or more, that is without the persecution of man. The number of Eagles that die from collision with wind turbines are in addition to the natural fatalities and other causes that are happening at present. That is if we have 30 dying from natural causes and another 30 dying from turbine kill it makes a total of 60!!
______________________

What is the impact of fatalities on the overall
population due to density/dependence issues? For
instance, if a floater eagle or subadult eagle dies
and no longer competes with a local territorial pair
for food resources, does this allow for increased
reproduction from that pair? How many eagle pairs
might increase annual productivity if there were less
eagles to compete for scarce food resources in managed
moorlands or forested areas?

The fatalities will have little impact on the overall density of Eagle populations, the density will already have been reduced because of territories no longer being available to them due to the building of windfarms. Eagles don't increase reproduction, they still have only 2 eggs per year, (some years they don't even lay), only one of which usually reaches the fledging stage, as was said before, it takes aprrox 5 years for an Eagle to reproduce itself. If an Eagles territory is no longer available to it then it may survive for a few years wandering about, however, it most unlikely to breed again. Eagles generally set up a territory for life, when it dies another (floater) will move in, it may take up with the original mate (female or male), or it may set itself up with a completely new mate. Some of the so-called floaters may never have a territory of their own and may be tolerated as free hunters by the resident pair.
__________________________

If a population at equilibrium starts to decline, does
it decline to zero at a fixed mortality rate, or does
it find equilibrium at a lower population level?

Who knows what happens when the population starts to decline, it's never happened before in this country. It can only find equilibrium at a lower level if there are enough suitable hunting and breeding territories left available after all the windfarms have taken their toll.
__________________________

There is no reason to believe that an increase in
mortality of the Scottish eagle population due to wind
turbine impacts will result in the extirpation of the
entire population. The numbers do not demonstrate
this. The overall population size could be somewhat
reduced and achieve equilibrium at a lower level, or
the population could increase, depending on how the
loss of individual birds impacts breeding performance
of existing territorial pairs. In fact, IF HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT OCCURS IN CONJUNCTION WITH WIND FARM
DEVELOPMENT AND THUS PRODUCES AN INCREASE IN FOOD
SUPPLY FOR EXISTING TERRITORIAL PAIRS, THERE COULD BE
A NET INCREASE IN THE GOLDEN EAGLE POPULATION DUE TO
WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT.

Once again you are condoning the culling (reducing the levels). You totally miss the point regarding the requirements of Golden Eagles to hunt and breed successfully on their own chosen territory (many are handed down for centuries, if not millennium), reducing the number of birds will not make more room for the remainder to expand their population, they can't, the territories they need to survive will have gone under windfarms! Habitat enhancement, where? Eagles require certain types of remote, wild habitat, HOW? As has been said before, Eagles don't usually displace to distant territories, whilst they might move a few miles to another suitable cliff nearby within their own hunting territory, it is highly doubtful they will move to a completely new unfamiliar territory many miles away.

If the Golden Eagle population is unable to increase naturally due to our persecution of these birds already, then how is it supposed to expand when we've removed a large portion of it's natural habitat for windfarms? The building of windfarms destroys the natural habitat and bars the natural passage of birds to their hunting and feeding grounds, how then is this enhancing the habitat? Eagles are totally territory dependant, remove the territory and the Eagles go also!
_________________________

In conclusion, persons unfamiliar with population
ecology of raptors cannot be expected to reach sound
conclusions regarding such matters. Population
impacts are affected by more than fatalities. We have
already seen cases of Scottish eagle biologists
working with government and industry to actually
enhance habitat quality as part of the
planning/development process. What is needed is
expert scrutiny and expert monitoring and expert
consulting to look after the interests of the Scottish
golden eagle population. Scotland is home to some
very outstanding and committed conservation biologists
and organizations who are engaged in such work.

The Golden and White-tailed Eagles are a totally different ball game to the majority of the other Raptors, their territorial requirements are unique in the UK, they require vast, very sparsely populated areas in which to hunt and raise their young (15-20 square miles), it is highly unlikely that we could enhance any of the habitat leftover from the windfarms to the liking of the Eagles. What is required is a committment from our environmental protection agencies and societies to enforce what is already a legal requirement for the protection of the existing Eagle territories and SSSI's, and to safeguard them for posterity. The other areas earmarked for Eagle habitat enhancement could be used for building windfarms, leaving the original territories in peace. The committed conservation biologists and organizations already have the full details of the breeding successes or otherwise, and the habitat requirements of our Eagles and other special birds that live in these remote Scottish Highland places, the data is well documented and well known, it should be put to good use in the protection of our Eagles, not re-written to prove suitability for windfarms. The Eagles and the environment are already protected under legislated law, if it was thought crucial then to legislate and protect these species and places by law, what has happened since that is so radical as to change the status quo. Has there been new legislation removing the legal protection, if so, where can we see a copy of it?
__________________________________________

:
Mark, work with them not against them...

But most of them have already put their cards on the table and come out in favour of windfarms, how does this help to save the Eagles.

Tim

nirofo.

 

[Edward woodwood]

looking at your first line and i can see a misquote already

Mr Moore doesn't say 0.7, he says between 0.3 and 0.7

as i put at the top of my post, it's not my opinion. You don't actually know my opinion on all of this by the way. I'm not condoning anything, just reporting what a professional ornithologist says on the matter

nothing more or less

now, is the rest of the post as inaccurate as the first line?

Tim

and it looks as if i've posted half of that massive post as it's in my qoutes. Can you remove them? Someone i know might see it

 

[dbradnum]

That's a pretty good post on the whole, nirofo, especially the final paragraph. Your mention of building windfarms on area marked for enhancement rather than existing territories is the type of compromise position that will surely carry more weight and credibility than much of the ranting that goes on here. Similarly your sentence "what is required..." is well reasoned.

It would be very interesting to put a more exact figure on the number of eagles fledged in Scotland per year over the last ten years, say. Obviously your 33 is derived from a reliable source, but it sounds extremely low to me - anybody know when was the last full census, if such things take in breeding success?

 

[Robert L Jarvis]

Remember the companies, business interests behind windfarms are in it to make money, to make a profit. That is their bottomline and to be honest I do not think those entities, the directors etc that control them or the politicians by and large give a toss for the impact on the birds, landscape etc.

This governments record on such matters is nothing to write home about. It does not have anything like a coherent energy policy.

As I said before what if the Norfolk north coast became a dead scene for birds would there still be same keen support for turbines.

 

[nirofo]

looking at your first line and i can see a misquote already

Mr Moore doesn't say 0.7, he says between 0.3 and 0.7

as i put at the top of my post, it's not my opinion. You don't actually know my opinion on all of this by the way. I'm not condoning anything, just reporting what a professional ornithologist says on the matter

nothing more or less

now, is the rest of the post as inaccurate as the first line?

Tim

and it looks as if i've posted half of that massive post as it's in my qoutes. Can you remove them? Someone i know might see it

Hi Tim

OK, I concede I should have used the full quote of 0.30 to.070, (mean of 0.5), but it doesn't make any difference, there are still some pairs that don't manage to raise any young for several years!

For the rest of it, look it up for yourself Tim, or do you already know a lot about Eagle territorial requirements and breeding cycles - I don't know everything, not by along chalk, but I have been intimately involved in their protection and breeding biology for more than 30 years, so I feel fairly confident that what I've said is close enough.

If you look at the post you'll see I've quoted your posted script in italics, my replies to the script is in normal case lettering, should be plain enough to follow.

I solemny declare that the script in italics is the work of Stan Moore!

nirofo.