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

[dbradnum]

All good, but it doesn't say how many of the 435 pairs actually bred (i.e how many pairs were there against which we can apply the breeding success ratio of c 0.5 ?)

There's two conflicting viewpoints on this:

1) the 'obvious' interpretation (i.e. the one that I would naively make in the first place) is to say 435 pairs x breeding success ratio = 217 offspring per year on average
2) or, as I think nirofo would say, 435 pairs, but far less breeding pairs; 123 breeding pairs x 0.5 = 61 offspring on average.

Not sure who's right. Unusually for this thread, I'm going to stick my head above the parapet (perhaps to be shot down from both sides simultaneously) and say that I can see logic in both arguments!

 

[Edward woodwood]

breeding success will vary of course

certainly over the last 11 years at least (until someone gives us more data) breeding pop appears stable...so...

 

[dbradnum]

breeding success will vary of course

certainly over the last 11 years at least (until someone gives us more data) breeding pop appears stable...so...

so... still don't know how many eagles fledge per year (to prove or disprove either of the two options above), since don't know how many are required to maintain a stable population (i.e. how many die and need replacing)

 

[nirofo]

so... still don't know how many eagles fledge per year (to prove or disprove either of the two options above), since don't know how many are required to maintain a stable population (i.e. how many die and need replacing)[/QUOTE]


It's not for me to release all the data, maybe the RSPB can release all the FACTUAL DATA, for all the pairs breeding annually, not for the total pairs in UK, many of which don't breed annually! They can release the relevant DATA without divulging nesting sites, that way everyone will know the true status of the breeding successes or otherwise of our Golden Eagles.

nirofo.

 

[Jos Stratford]

Hi Jos Stratford

Congratulations, you know my name, what's yours?

It's not for me to release all the data, .

Well of course you couldn't do that, 'cos you'd have to reveal your name :'D

 

[dbradnum]

Congratulations, you know my name, what's yours?

Well of course you couldn't do that, 'cos you'd have to reveal your name :'D

Not quite sure how this helps, particularly given there was at least the semblance of a civil discussion going on <shock, horror>... Unless the objective is just to stir things up back to their usual vitriol?

The point about pseudonyms been made before, many times (incl by me, so I do sympathise), without any success at all - maybe it's time to let it rest in favour of bigger issues?

 

[TexasFlyway]

people might find it instructive to look at other forums such as UKBN (UKBirdnet) which Mark has virtually taken over and done exactly the same thing as on here. Accusing all and sundry of not caring, publishing rubbish science etc. A few people on there have bravely tried to redress the balance. Notably, proper orithologists!!!

Stan Moore wrote:

I think it is best to resume a silent posture
regarding recent misinformed comments on wind energy.
If additive mortality led to inevitable extirpation or
extinction, then all life forms on earth would be long
gone. Novel forms of additive mortality routinely
emerge, including in the human population. But
population status is not governed solely by mortality,
and anyone who infers it is is not capable of carrying
on sensible arguments.

Anyone who is persuaded by misinformed comments has
the right to speak out and clearly identify their
error and confusion, but there is no need to correct
the thinking of those people, who are driven more by
emotion or delusion than by fact and truth. I
challenge competent ornithologists to publicly side
with Mark Duchamp in his claims about extirpation.
Many competent ornithologists are working on
population impacts and are well-informed on the
realities and are working for solutions, mitigation,
regulation, etc.

Tim

Are you saying Stan Moore is an ornithologist? I haven't found any such statement in his writings, nor can I find curricula vitae on him. He posts prodigiously on birding matters on several sites as well as political commentary on some other sites.

The only thing I do know is he is from Geronimo, CA; and an editor’s note preceding an article he wrote on the CERTAIN site. http://www.certain-natl.org/moorereply.html

“Editor’s Note:
Mr Moore is a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations including the Raptor Research Foundation, the Western Bird Banding Association, the California Hawking Club, the Association of Field Ornithologists, and the North American Falconers Association, as well as an active member of the environmental organization RangeNet. CERTAIN would like to thank Mr. Moore for sending us this testimonial and permission for inclusion on our website.”

If (and I really don't know) he has no professional credentials, why is his opinion so much more valued than anyone else writing on this subject?

 

[Osprey_watcher]

“Editor’s Note:
Mr Moore is a member of several falconry and ornithological clubs and organizations including the Raptor Research Foundation, the Western Bird Banding Association, the California Hawking Club, the Association of Field Ornithologists, and the North American Falconers Association, as well as an active member of the environmental organization RangeNet. CERTAIN would like to thank Mr. Moore for sending us this testimonial and permission for inclusion on our website.”

If (and I really don't know) he has no professional credentials, why is his opinion so much more valued than anyone else writing on this subject?

I don't know the guy but the fact that he is a member of the Association of Field Ornithologists suggests he has qualifications. Don't you have to have qualifications to join such a body? It is usual.
Besides which the fact that he is a member of so many organisations suggests that he has a wealth of knowledge, and the that fact that his opinion is so valued suggests respect among his peers.
If it were otherwise he would soon be exposed.
Why do you doubt him?

 

[dbradnum]

Bit more background on Stan Moore, straight from the horse's mouth.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/a/2003/09/08/urbananimal.DTL&type=universal

 

[Osprey_watcher]

Bit more background on Stan Moore, straight from the horse's mouth.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/a/2003/09/08/urbananimal.DTL&type=universal

Informative article although it does seem to suggest that Stan doesn't have any formal qualifications.
However the years of experince and tutelage under Francis his mentor suggests he knows what he is talking about.

 

[TexasFlyway]

I don't know the guy but the fact that he is a member of the Association of Field Ornithologists suggests he has qualifications. Don't you have to have qualifications to join such a body? It is usual.
Besides which the fact that he is a member of so many organisations suggests that he has a wealth of knowledge, and the that fact that his opinion is so valued suggests respect among his peers.
If it were otherwise he would soon be exposed.
Why do you doubt him?

To join the Association of Field Ornitholigists all you need is $21. You don't have to fill in more than your name and address. Biographical info is optional.

You can also join all the other organizations also.

Here is a quote from Mr. Moore.

"I don't have any kids, or a wife, and I've got only a few personal possessions, so for me it's raptors all the time. I call myself a "citizen conservationist" because I work as a plumber to make money -- I'm not a professional biologist. This allows me to speak out on certain issues that biologists can't discuss freely because their job might be put in jeopardy due to political pressures."

 

[Katy Penland]

I don't know the guy but the fact that he is a member of the Association of Field Ornithologists suggests he has qualifications. Don't you have to have qualifications to join such a body? It is usual.
Besides which the fact that he is a member of so many organisations suggests that he has a wealth of knowledge, and the that fact that his opinion is so valued suggests respect among his peers.
If it were otherwise he would soon be exposed.
Why do you doubt him?

Anybody can join "field ornithology" organizations, at least here in the US. No professional qualifications are required, just pay the dues. Because Stan Moore likes to join a lot of organizations doesn't mean his opinion is any more valid than anyone else's, only that he likes paying dues. I'm not saying he's not qualified, but his memberships in pro-am orgs are scientifically, but perhaps not politically, meaningless.

 

[nirofo]

Congratulations, you know my name, what's yours?




Well of course you couldn't do that, 'cos you'd have to reveal your name :'D

Hi Jos Stratford

No, it's nothing to do with that, it's because the data is held as confidential under the data protection act!!

nirofo.

 

[TexasFlyway]

Informative article although it does seem to suggest that Stan doesn't have any formal qualifications.
However the years of experince and tutelage under Francis his mentor suggests he knows what he is talking about.

It doesn't suggest it -- he comes out and says it!

That aside. Mark Duchamp, nirofo, and savethebirds have at least as much validity to their statements and have the advantage of local knowledge.

Mr. Moore makes no mention of ever seeing either the areas or the birds under discussion.

I don't know who is right; but I place no great weight on Mr. Moore's assertions just because he was quoted in opposition to Mark Duchamp's postings.

 

[nirofo]

All good, but it doesn't say how many of the 435 pairs actually bred (i.e how many pairs were there against which we can apply the breeding success ratio of c 0.5 ?)

There's two conflicting viewpoints on this:

1) the 'obvious' interpretation (i.e. the one that I would naively make in the first place) is to say 435 pairs x breeding success ratio = 217 offspring per year on average
2) or, as I think nirofo would say, 435 pairs, but far less breeding pairs; 123 breeding pairs x 0.5 = 61 offspring on average.

Not sure who's right. Unusually for this thread, I'm going to stick my head above the parapet (perhaps to be shot down from both sides simultaneously) and say that I can see logic in both arguments!

Hi dbradnum

As already stated, the mean young reproduction to fledging rate of the acknowledged 435 pairs of Eagles is 0.5, this would only = 217 young fledged if all 435 pairs of Eagles bred every year. It is well known and well documented that this is not the case, for all 435 pairs of Eagles to breed in any one year would be extremely exceptional if not impossible!

Once again, the 123 pairs of Eagles attempting breeding or breeding were quoted for year 2005, which as stated was a poor breeding year with only 33 young recorded to fledging stage!! Even if you multiplied the 123 by 3.5 to give near enough the total population for the UK, it would still only raise the young fledged total to 116.

nirofo.

 

[nirofo]

It doesn't suggest it -- he comes out and says it!

That aside. Mark Duchamp, nirofo, and savethebirds have at least as much validity to their statements and have the advantage of local knowledge.

Mr. Moore makes no mention of ever seeing either the areas or the birds under discussion.

I don't know who is right; but I place no great weight on Mr. Moore's assertions just because he was quoted in opposition to Mark Duchamp's postings.

Hi TexasFlyway

Yes I wondered about Mr. Moores credentials regarding the Scottish Golden Eagle circles, I am fairly familiar with quite a few well known Scottish Raptor (including Eagles) ornithologists, I can't say I've ever met him at any meetings or in the field. I've certainly not come across any written papers by him about the breeding successes or otherwise of Scottish Eagles, maybe I've just missed them somewhere. That's not to say that I am being derogatory in any way to Mr. Moore, it's just that I would like to be better informed as to his work on Scottish Golden Eagles before I make an opinion. He may well be a recognised authority in his field in America, unfortunately the discussion on this thread at present is to do with Scotlands Eagles, though I acknowledge that the problems the Raptors are facing is universal.

nirofo.

 

[savethebirds]

Hi dbradnum

As already stated, the mean young reproduction to fledging rate of the acknowledged 435 pairs of Eagles is 0.5, this would only = 217 young fledged if all 435 pairs of Eagles bred every year. It is well known and well documented that this is not the case, for all 435 pairs of Eagles to breed in any one year would be extremely exceptional if not impossible!

Once again, the 123 pairs of Eagles attempting breeding or breeding were quoted for year 2005, which as stated was a poor breeding year with only 33 young recorded to fledging stage!! Even if you multiplied the 123 by 3.5 to give near enough the total population for the UK, it would still only raise the young fledged total to 116.

nirofo.

I'd rather listen to the man on the ground than any fleeting visit from a so called 'professional' paid by the wind industry.

 

[Osprey_watcher]

That aside. Mark Duchamp, nirofo, and savethebirds have at least as much validity to their statements and have the advantage of local knowledge. .

True, but he has experience of seeing the affect of windfarms first hand.
As far as I can see the persons you name haven't. I may be wrong, if so apologies.
Mr Moore also seems to put foward logical arguement with suggestions other than stop all windfarms being built in Scotland, which I think everyone knows won't happen.
Nirofo obviously has knowledge of eagles and it is commendable that he/she is worried. Save our birds seems to do nothing but repeat what Mark and Nirofo say while at the same time launching bitter attacks on anyone who disagrees, so I wouldn't give her views any consideration at all.

I don't know who is right; but I place no great weight on Mr. Moore's assertions just because he was quoted in opposition to Mark Duchamp's postings.

My main objection to the arguements put forward my Mark centre around the word extirpation. His flawed maths did'nt prove this would be the outcome to me. I don't like the idea of siting windfarms where they would have any kind of damaging affect on resident wildlife, but I don't see how it can be avoided.
What we must do is work with the relevant bodies to minimise this damage.

 

[savethebirds]

- maybe it's time to let it rest in favour of bigger issues?

Yes, the deaths of many golden eagles.

This whole business is so incestuous. The SNH is a body without teeth with regards to windfarms and of course, they are funded by the Scottish Executive which says it all.

Golden Eagles: Protected species so we believe but who is protecting them? Certainly not SNH, nor anyone it seems. The perception is so different from the reality.

Niforo's post was very interesting. It's now time for the RSPB to put out the real data, without divulging the nest sites.

 

[Andrew Rowlands]

Whoa now guys - let's try to stick to facts (as much as we can) and not go leaping off in all directions, blaming and accusing at random.

Much more of these 'spoiling' tactics and I'm gonna start ripping out the dross - make this Thread a whole lot easier to read, too.






From time to time, but especially over the last few days, this Thread was becoming quite useful :t: - let's not allow it to go downhill again, please?

Andy.