Golden Eagles could be returning to Snowdonia.

Soldato
Joined
25 Jun 2011
Posts
5,468
Location
Yorkshire and proud of it!
After a bit of undercover research it appears that there are concerns with the golden eagle's return/increased tourism due to the fact that a full grown eagle's new favourite quick/easy meal are very young babies left in open top prams (also something to do with soft fontanelles).

You can imagine if was smaller/lighter:

The music on that video was so unexpected.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Which is why Human hunters are now an important factor in managing environments where all the other apex predators have been wiped out...

And WTF shouldn't we enjoy the role? Humans have spent, what, several million years, evolving into an Apex predator.

And now we have a couple of generations worth of urban S/AJWs telling us that we have been doing it all wrong for the last 100,000 generations or so!

Really!

:rolleyes:
This is utterly sick (if serious).

"Human hunters"... yeah big men shooting defenceless animals with rifles. I'm so impressed.

And to "enjoy" it also? Like I said, sick (if serious).
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Dec 2010
Posts
52,320
Location
Welling, London
I actually think it’s a bad idea. Too many lambs, dogs, cats and maybe even children could end up being attacked. I know it’s a simplistic view, but eagles are out and out hunters. Among the most elite hunters on the planet. If they can, they’ll take it. And they succeed many times.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I actually think it’s a bad idea. Too many lambs, dogs, cats and maybe even children could end up being attacked. I know it’s a simplistic view, but eagles are out and out hunters. Among the most elite hunters on the planet. If they can, they’ll take it. And they succeed many times.
The biggest threat to people is people. The biggest threat to lambs, dogs, cats, even children is people.

The amount of damage the eagles could do compared to the amount of damage we do to each other/everything else all the time, is pretty minimal.

Otherwise you're agreeing to just let species die off as soon as human populations reduce their habitable ranges to the point of non-existence.

And if we decide that humans and human going concerns always trump that of other species, then we'll drive pretty much all other life into extinction just so things are maximally comfortable for ourselves.

Which would be wrong.

We should give other creatures spaces to live even if it makes our lives a teensy bit more difficult. We don't have any moral authority to drive out all other life and then decide we're happy to just say ***** it and let them all die out.

It irritates me that humans have such a human-centric viewpoint that often excludes the needs of everything else as tho utterly unimportant.

We're not all that. Most of us are morons.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,372
Makes perfect sense, especially when everything else around them looks so small, too. They'd not think they were high up, since they don't fly anyway and aren't exactly reknowned for their 3D spatial reasoning abilities (else they'd be Civil Engineers and CAD designers instead of lunch).
The only way they'd reason they were in an aeroplane is if they had a dim, distant memory of being thusly imported... tenuous, but possible, I reckon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMiKyfd6hA0
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,372
a good read on this is "Death in the long grass" by Peter hathaway-capstick, worked as a warden in a game park. he actually designed a bullet for bigger animals, they tend to be known as monolithic rounds. some of his stories about what the animals are capable of doing is quite eye-watering. you have to be pretty dumb in my opinion to throw around the "defenceless" adjective. in quite a few cases, using a gun is barely evening the scale, never mind taking unfair advantage.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
This is utterly sick (if serious).

"Human hunters"... yeah big men shooting defenceless animals with rifles. I'm so impressed.

And to "enjoy" it also? Like I said, sick (if serious).

Pretty much the whole of society has animals killed for enjoyment, eating meat for example is completely unnecessary but people do it because they enjoy it. Unless you're vegan you're just as bad as the hunters.
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
I'm not saying farmers are whiter than white, but in any way suggesting they're wealthy land owners protecting their wealth through unreasonable actions is simply wrong.

I grew up in a farming village, when I was 6/7 and moved there, 5 farms operated supporting probably 30+ people.

35 years later and there's 3 operating farms, but massively cut down, barn conversions all over as the farmers have been forced to sell land to survive.

A lot don't even own their own equipment these days, relying on "borrowing" a neighbouring farmer's.

Which is basically what I’m talking about. Smaller farmers are going out of business and land is being consolidated into bigger and bigger parcels which are being farmed more and more intensively with bigger and bigger pieces of equipment. This change is having a corresponding impact on the environment.

Your comment reminds me of my parents “in joke” though. Apparently my mother married my father because he was builder and they were always rich... my father married my mother because she was a farmer and they are always rich... Unfortunately for me, neither was true. :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2005
Posts
28,851
Location
Canada
Actually, he's telling the truth, albeit with a poor choice of words, perhaps... but no poorer than having a go at you for enjoying your sick pollution of the environment every time you drive your car or make use of something plastic.

South Africa is actually quite big on wildlife conservation. But if the population of a particular protected group (say, elephants) grows too big too quickly or in too concentrated an area, it can cause a lot more damage to the general environment than it protects. There are various solutions to try, but herd culling is one recognised as sometimes necessary. To that end, they do issue licences for hunters to kill X number of certain animal types per year, but these are tightly regulated and cost an *absolute* ******* fortune to purchase... which also helps to fund the rest of the conservation work and combat poaching.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/feb/26/environment
http://www.sahunters.co.za/index.ph...-hunting-licences-and-permits-in-south-africa
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/25/exotic-game-hunts-costs/1864667/

So yes, human hunters are an important element in conservation, and yes I'm sure they do enjoy it... For upwards of $150,000 per trip they'd better be enjoying it!
As for shooting 'defenceless' animals with rifles... just Google for "south africa hunting deaths" and count how many hunters (including professionals) have been killed, often by their very target which simply carried on charging through the massive 4-bore or even 2-bore ammunition.
I watch a lot of Forgotten Weapons, which has previously showcased some of these - Most were made double-barrelled, because even at that ridiculously big calibre a single shot was often not enough, and if you don't have a second shot ready to go immediately, you're not living to tell the tale.

And why is there an overpopulation in those areas? In part because (as the guardian briefly mentions) of man made obstacles keeping them in the small areas.

Human encroachment on wildlife ranges and the habitat destruction we cause is the biggest issue. Farming is the main reason for this encroachment.

The elephant population in Africa had collapsed by 90% in the last century because of human influence (poaching is also another, lesser, cause), going from several million to a few hundred thousand, which is one of the reasons so many people are up in arms about the culling of them. It’s a problem largely caused by humans, being “solved” as we always do, by killing other animals.

The good news for wildlife is that as long as they can hold on, once we wipe ourselves out Mother Nature is really good at bringing things back into equilibrium pretty quickly. As an example the latest figures suggest Europeans wiped out about 95% of the indigenous human population in South America within a short period of “discovering” it. That obviously lead to the collapse of all the civilizations there and the subsequent abandonment of cities and farming areas (which we are only just again rediscovering). The forests restored those areas to nature very quickly, to the point that we now consider those areas pristine and untouched rainforest.

Unfortunately in the short term they are a bit screwed because we need that land, and we need to farm that land more intensively, to grow food to feed our ever expanding human population.

And let’s not pretend the UK is any better. We just did it a few centuries earlier than Africa and SE Asia. And unlike South America our populations haven’t been wiped out and allowed large scale rewilding to happen. We’re now at the next stage, trying to reintroduce some of the wildlife we wiped out, because we realized it’s actually beneficial.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
a good read on this is "Death in the long grass" by Peter hathaway-capstick, worked as a warden in a game park. he actually designed a bullet for bigger animals, they tend to be known as monolithic rounds. some of his stories about what the animals are capable of doing is quite eye-watering. you have to be pretty dumb in my opinion to throw around the "defenceless" adjective. in quite a few cases, using a gun is barely evening the scale, never mind taking unfair advantage.
Want to hazard a guess what the ratio of animals hunted and killed to humans killed (whilst hunting) is?

Even if you want to limit the animals in question to lions or bears or something that is even capable of killing a person if it puts it mind to it.

Yeah, I'm sure it's not at all one-sided, is it. Hunters are dying like flies, right?

And sure a hunter without a gun is in trouble. Given that most hunters pay to go out with a small group of heavily armed escorts, I'm sure the risk factor is pretty small unless you choose to make it more dangerous. Most hunters are killing their quarry from quite a distance, from the back of a truck. Surrounded by guides/rangers/more hunters.
 
Back
Top Bottom