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

[savethebirds]

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.

Here. Here. Well said. Some sense at last. :clap:

 

[Edward woodwood]

the script in italics is by Stan Moore!!! I made that cl ear in my initial post. Sorry, but we must maintain clarity in these things, especially when others are quoted.

blimey...

i get this in term time, not when i'm on holiday too please :t:

Tim

i don't know much about raptor pop. ecology, just as a layman. Pop. ecology of Raptors by Newton is about the depth of it!

 

[nirofo]

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?[/QUOTE]

Hi dbradnum

The figure of 33 is taken from the Scottish Raptor newsletter for Sept 2005.

2005 was a poor breeding year for most Scottish raptors.

nirofo.

 

[dbradnum]

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

IF it became "a dead scene" as you put it, then I'm sure you're absolutely right - support would drop.

However, you're making an enormous assumption that putting turbines around the Norfolk coast would have that dramatic effect. I'd be surprised if you, or anyone else, could justify it...

There are windfarms on the Norfolk coast already; I personally wouldn't object in principle to more.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Newton gives the following

Scotland 64-68
mean of 0.6 young per year, per territorial pair

Scotland 45-57
mean of 0.8 young per year, per territorial pair

Scotland 64-71
mean of 0.4 young per year, per territorial pair

also a figure of 0.5 but timeframe not given

I realise things change though...
anyone know of other publicly available data?

Tim

 

[savethebirds]

it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms.

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=rw-br

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9005334&contentId=7009882

http://www.texaco.co.uk/scripts/PressRelease.asp?PressDate=20021203

http://www.gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind_energy/en/index.htm

 

[dbradnum]

The figure of 33 is taken from the Scottish Raptor newsletter for Sept 2005.

2005 was a poor breeding year for most Scottish raptors.

nirofo.

So it could it be that the average recorded breeding success is (perhaps significantly) in excess of 50 birds, say, and then you can factor in unrecorded pairs etc?

Ok, with this argument, I'm not going to get to the quoted 210... but I suspect I could reasonably get much, much closer than 33 - is that fair?

Now I read it again, I also think that Tim's / Stan Moore's quoted point questioning whether fatalities are additive is valid. You can't have a population model that assumes all eagles killed by a turbine would otherwise have survived x years (x between 1 and 30) - at least some deaths will not be additive. Couldn't possibly speculate what the non-additive proportion would be, mind... but I bet it's not zero as you suggest.

 

[Edward woodwood]

the energy companies quoted are all getting into several forms of renewables as oil dwindles

what the hell are we supposed to do? have them stay 100% oil and gas polluters?

yes, they have poor records in several places.... Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Nigeria etc. When they start to do more of what we want, guess what? It's not enough etc...

maybe we should try to make them go further down that road or tax their profits more heavily and use it for renewables

you cannot take on the whole world.

Tim

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

you cannot take on the whole world.

No, this Thread's not about that, thanks for reminding everyone Tim :t: !


Let's cutout the personal agendas and stick to the topic please.


Nirofo, I think I've reformatted your earlier Post ok - you like to check?

 

[Edward woodwood]

No, this Thread's not about that, thanks for reminding everyone Tim :t: !


Let's cutout the personal agendas and stick to the topic please.


Nirofo, I think I've reformatted your earlier Post ok - you like to check?

cheers Andy

reformatting looks fine, should keep Mr Moore happy if he sees it now I hope.



re my original post... you don't have to keep me happy Andy... you don't think i'm actually THAT bothered do ya?

:t:

 

[savethebirds]

what the hell are we supposed to do?

The "we" says it all really.

There should be no compromise whatsoever with regards to eagle territories.

 

[nirofo]

So it could it be that the average recorded breeding success is (perhaps significantly) in excess of 50 birds, say, and then you can factor in unrecorded pairs etc?

Ok, with this argument, I'm not going to get to the quoted 210... but I suspect I could reasonably get much, much closer than 33 - is that fair?

Now I read it again, I also think that Tim's / Stan Moore's quoted point questioning whether fatalities are additive is valid. You can't have a population model that assumes all eagles killed by a turbine would otherwise have survived x years (x between 1 and 30) - at least some deaths will not be additive. Couldn't possibly speculate what the non-additive proportion would be, mind... but I bet it's not zero as you suggest.[/QUOTE]

Hi dbradnum

I would say that probably 95% of the Eagles breeding in the UK have nest sites that are well known, have been well recorded annually for many years, the ups and downs of the relevant pairs are also well recorded. The fact is there are very few Eagle nests which are not recorded annually and the data known and published! The quoted success figures for Golden Eagle 2005 are as accurate as they need to be, they come from legitimate sources. Even if the total nests recorded was 100% and you double the figures for whatever reason you like there is still no where near the 210 quoted. The 210 quoted assumes that each of the approx 420 pairs rear 0.5 young to fledging, that's an unrealistic assumption, the 0.5 young fledged is to the actual number of birds breeding for that particular breeding season. The number of pairs actually breeding in any given year may be nowhere near the 420. In 2005 only 123 pairs were recorded breeding.

nirofo.

 

[dbradnum]

Hi dbradnum

I would say that probably 95% of the Eagles breeding in the UK have nest sites that are well known, have been well recorded annually for many years, the ups and downs of the relevant pairs are also well recorded. The fact is there are very few Eagle nests which are not recorded annually and the data known and published! The quoted success figures for Golden Eagle 2005 are as accurate as they need to be, they come from legitimate sources. Even if the total nests recorded was 100% and you double the figures for whatever reason you like there is still no where near the 210 quoted. The 210 quoted assumes that each of the approx 420 pairs rear 0.5 young to fledging, that's an unrealistic assumption, the 0.5 young fledged is to the actual number of birds breeding for that particular breeding season. The number of pairs actually breeding in any given year may be nowhere near the 420. In 2005 only 123 pairs were recorded breeding.

nirofo.

nirofo,

The latest survey information (http://www.rspb.org.uk/scotland/action/goldeneaglesurvey.asp) I can find states that there were 431 pairs in 2003. Now this may perhaps be a slightly high count taking account of annual variation, though note that it is entirely consistent with the figure of 422 pairs in 1993, and with the figure that Moore uses. There were more pairs (147) on the Hebrides than the total you state for the entire country! Where did your total of 123 come from?

I'm intrigued by the comment that "the figures [33] are as accurate as they need to be"... to do what? Do you stand by this count as an accurate indicator of average fledged Golden Eagles per year for the entire UK?

Tim has provided eagle breeding success rates from a quoted source - if you accept these, and are willing to believe the RSPB endorsed survey count, then 210 fledged eagles a year is reasonably accurate, isn't it?

 

[Mark Duchamp]

nirofo,

There were more pairs (147) on the Hebrides than the total you state for the entire country! Where did your total of 123 come from?

Seems to me Nirofo wrote: 123 pairs actually breeding, though I don't know myself: I have requested additional information on the 2003 survey, but it is kept under wraps. - What are they afraid of? That it would show how fragile the Scottish GE population really is?
.

 

[dbradnum]

Seems to me Nirofo wrote: 123 pairs actually breeding, though I don't know myself.

Yes, I wondered if that was the distinction as well - hopefully nirofo can clarify IDC.

If that is the case, it still doesn't amount to a coherent argument, though! The 123 figure is incompatible with the fledging success ratios stated above, since these relate to young fledged per territorial pair, not per breeding pair.

At the moment, I still can't see anything drastically wrong with approx 430 territorial pairs x approx 0.5 young per territorial pair giving approx 210 eagles fledged in the UK per year.

Would be interested to hear more about the RSPB's count methodology, and whether they have any stats on the proportion of pairs that were breeding in 2003.

 

[savethebirds]

Anyone who loves birds should not be promoting wind turbines.

There is the Trustee Act. There is vicarious liability. I've seen enough.

Having seen the report above, I'd expect American environmental groups to be suing these people.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Yes, I wondered if that was the distinction as well - hopefully nirofo can clarify IDC.

If that is the case, it still doesn't amount to a coherent argument, though! The 123 figure is incompatible with the fledging success ratios stated above, since these relate to young fledged per territorial pair, not per breeding pair.

At the moment, I still can't see anything drastically wrong with approx 430 territorial pairs x approx 0.5 young per territorial pair giving approx 210 eagles fledged in the UK per year.

Would be interested to hear more about the RSPB's count methodology, and whether they have any stats on the proportion of pairs that were breeding in 2003.

I thought nirofo made it pretty clear but I'll repeat it here

I would say that probably 95% of the Eagles breeding in the UK have nest sites that are well known, have been well recorded annually for many years, the ups and downs of the relevant pairs are also well recorded. The fact is there are very few Eagle nests which are not recorded annually and the data known and published! The quoted success figures for Golden Eagle 2005 are as accurate as they need to be, they come from legitimate sources. Even if the total nests recorded was 100% and you double the figures for whatever reason you like there is still no where near the 210 quoted. The 210 quoted assumes that each of the approx 420 pairs rear 0.5 young to fledging, that's an unrealistic assumption, the 0.5 young fledged is to the actual number of birds breeding for that particular breeding season. The number of pairs actually breeding in any given year may be nowhere near the 420. In 2005 only 123 pairs were recorded breeding.

(my bold) Data from the Scottish Raptor newsletter from Autumn 2005, mentioned a little earlier.

I don't believe the RSPB do the count, merely collate the data from other sources - hopefully, it will be from the data supplied by the Scottish Raptor group and the BTO. They will have access to the data for 2003, presumably via the BTO. The Golden Eagle survey for 2003 page is >here<.

 

[dbradnum]

Data from the Scottish Raptor newsletter from Autumn 2005, mentioned a little earlier..

Thanks for clarifying - I know nirofo mentioned this as the source of the 33 young, so I probably should have inferred that the number of breeding pairs would have come from the same source. If that is the right inference, then apologies, my oversight.

At the moment, I'm struggling to reconcile 430 odd pairs with only 33 young fledged - it sounds extremely low to support a stable population, so somewhere I suspect the numbers. However, I'm willing to listen to those with more knowledge of this topic.

I think it's worth saying that I'm not questioning the figures because I'm all in favour (or even remotely in favour) of a windfarm in eagle territories on Lewis. I'm questioning them because I'd like the debate to be objective and factual, so I (and others) can learn more, and take a reasoned viewpoint.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

Saveourbirds, stop misquoting me

"it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms".

The above is what posted as a quote from me. Not untrue but it was only the latter half of a sentence from a post which when read in full said that someone had reported that oil companies were funding legal costs for anti wind farm protesters. Although there doesn't seem to be any evidence put forward. If this is true it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms.

You make it sound as though I was saying oil companies are not involved in wind farms, when in reality I don't know if they are or aren't. I was asking a question, maybe badly but there you go.

If you wish to reply to any my posts please quote my full staement not just the bit that allows you to twist it to your meaning. I find it offensive and very underhand.

 

[David]

"it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms".

The above is what posted as a quote from me. Not untrue but it was only the latter half of a sentence from a post which when read in full said that someone had reported that oil companies were funding legal costs for anti wind farm protesters. Although there doesn't seem to be any evidence put forward. If this is true it shows the oil companies are not involved in windfarms.

You make it sound as though I was saying oil companies are not involved in wind farms, when in reality I don't know if they are or aren't. I was asking a question, maybe badly but there you go.

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle - as ever.

I have been informed, at first and secondhand, of citizens' anti wind farm action groups being approached by a lawyer offering them free legal aid. The said lawyer, who 'popped up' in a number of places in Germany, was said to have been employed by an oil company. A piece of investigative journalism, reported in a normally reliable TV programme here, reported the same (or a similar?) story.

No flames please - this is just a comment for information.

I believe personally that the big energy concerns are/will be covering their bets (and making money) by getting involved in wind energy while there's an upward curve. If they are not they should sack their CEOs.

David