IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
Well actually yes, as there are 200-300 pairs in Scotland.
Ian.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Golden Eagles in the Lake district (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter trw
- Start date
Ian.
MTem
Well-known member
Well as a lifelong fell-walker and mountaineer who has spent many many visits to Lakeland I wholeheartedly disagree - totally unrestricted access is another 'black' re my comment above and completely unnecessary given the clear opportunity for a balanced shade of grey. The presence of Goldies in Scotland is as irrelevant as their presence in Scandinavia or North America.
Mick
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
Farnboro John
Well-known member
Restrictions are put in place during the breeding season on e.g. vulnerable Peregrine breeding cliffs. In addition it is worth remembering that climbers use their skills and equipment to assist in nest monitoring and ringing schemes, so there is a real conservation benefit in maintaining goodwill between the parties.
The Lake District as already mentioned has not in the last couple of hundred years had a population of Golden Eagles, and there are more serious threats to be dealt with than walkers before a return in any strength becomes likely.
Making enemies of potential conservation allies - and those who venture to the tops habitually are generally people with a love of wild places and the wildlife in them - is plain stupidity. The example of the Riggindale eagles points the way forward for maintaining a balance when it eventually comes to it. In the meantime lets keep the eye on the ball.
John
The Lake District as already mentioned has not in the last couple of hundred years had a population of Golden Eagles, and there are more serious threats to be dealt with than walkers before a return in any strength becomes likely.
Making enemies of potential conservation allies - and those who venture to the tops habitually are generally people with a love of wild places and the wildlife in them - is plain stupidity. The example of the Riggindale eagles points the way forward for maintaining a balance when it eventually comes to it. In the meantime lets keep the eye on the ball.
John
There hasn't been a thriving population of Golden Eagles in the Lake District for over a century. There has been a rump population that has steadily declined to its inevitable end. With the Victorian explosion in game shooting and associated industrial game-keeping it became cut off from the contiguous UK population and that was that. It has nothing to do with walkers or even less right to roam activists. The Lake District is not big enough to hold it's own population of Golden Eagles if it was devoid of outdoor enthusiasts, so the emphasis of Golden Eagle conservation in the UK should be to end the illegal persecution that is preventing the expansion of the core population in Scotland, when that core is solid it will expand as a contiguous area and reach the Lake District in due course.
dantheman
Bah humbug
I think the point is that even if some birds did wander back, they would not be able to settle now with the disturbance - there's a difference between settled birds tolerating humans and new birds tolerating disturbance -they won't settle.
(And I know it's unlikely any birds will wander to the area - but we'll probably not even know)
Last edited:
dantheman
Bah humbug
The thing is that wildlife almost always automatically loses to start with.
Occasionally you have to allow a compromise which restricts the rights of the humans to a degree. (It is also the case that the wildlife can't stand up for it's own rights, so some humans have to go and stand up for them against the other humans.)
Are you in favour of, for example, allowing unrestricted access by humans to tern nesting beach areas in the breeding season?
(For example the ones that do currently get protected by wardens and fences, knowing full well that all the chicks will be lost and the species lost, first locally then nationally.)
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
I do support that. But there has been for a very long time a tradition in the Lake District that is is a place for walking and roaming and rock climbing. And long may that last.
Ian.
dantheman
Bah humbug
A long tradition of ... what? 50? 100 years?
The Golden Eagles (and other wildlife) were there for 1000's of years before.
The idea for just one or two areas (a small percentage of the total land area) and possibly only on a temporary/seasonal/rotational basis - is that so terrible to contemplate?
(There's also a long tradition of going to the seaside ... in it's current form to go bathing on beaches for a perhaps similar length of time).
IAN JAMES THOMPSON
Well-known member
A long tradition of ... what? 50? 100 years?
The Golden Eagles (and other wildlife) were there for 1000's of years before.
The idea for just one or two areas (a small percentage of the total land area) and possibly only on a temporary/seasonal/rotational basis - is that so terrible to contemplate?
(There's also a long tradition of going to the seaside ... in it's current form to go bathing on beaches for a perhaps similar length of time).
While the Golden Eagles where nesting walkers where walking on the fells above those crags not far from where that pair of Golden Eagles where nesting, quite happily and having young that fledged. So it's a false pretence that humans disturb Golden Eagles. And probably far more people go to the Lake District at present on holiday than UK coastal areas.
Ian.
Sandra (Taylor)
Well-known member
Couldn't get past your first sentence. It doesn't seem to make sense! Too many 'where' ?
MTem
Well-known member
Move to the US Ian. With your blinkered, 'all or nothing' view of things you'd fit in really well. I fail to see why a balance between unfettered access and some restrictions of human activity in some relatively small locations in the aid of species conservation (be it of raptors or butterflies) is such a hard pill to swallow.
Personally I'd be strongly for it. Oh, and there are prats among rock climbers and fell-walkers (and birders).
Dan the man says'The thing is that wildlife almost always automatically loses to start with.
Occasionally you have to allow a compromise which restricts the rights of the humans to a degree. (It is also the case that the wildlife can't stand up for it's own rights, so some humans have to go and stand up for them against the other humans.)'
A perfect example of this on Scout Scar,the SSSI I mentioned where the authorities kindly erected signs to keep dogs on leads[not just under comtrol] during the bird breeding season.
Over the years more and more dog owners appeared with not just one dog but two or more.It was,over the years, being used more and more,as a dog walking area /dog toilet.
After a while I noticed birds reducing in numbers.[ yes I realise there are other factors but this one, of dog disturbance, is potentially avoidable]They saw it as their right to walk unfettered so whilst they generally stuck to the paths the dogs would run off exploring the surrounding vegetation which round here is unique.It has been allowed to grow naturally with no sheep grazing allowed.
When I asked the authorities to erect the dog lead notices they were gradually ripped off and even before that happened 99% of dog owners just ignored them.
The dog owners do not want their rights restricted by having to hang on to a straining lead -it would spoil their walk.
Knowing,too well, about the selfish gene and human nature, I foretold what would happen to the signs and realised that the owners would just ignore them, but what else can we do and at least make an effort?
One morning I heard an old man shouting 'Toby!','Toby!' looking for his dog which he had lost in the dense vegetation.He had no idea where it was.
He saw my bins and said,'Eh you don't see the birds you used to see up here years ago!' I thought to myself.'I wonder why!'
'Are you in favour of, for example, allowing unrestricted access by humans to tern nesting beach areas in the breeding season?'
says dan the man.
Well if you really care about birds and wildlife and not just yourself, there is no answer to that.
I asked the warden at Foulney Tern reserve if he had any problems with the public disturbing the birds.He said they generally respected their requests and didn't just wander willy- nilly over the island even if they had a right to do so.
The Thirlmere fencing project was opposed by the right to roamers even though they would still have thousands of acres left to trample over.I would have thought some of them even might have some interest in wildlife and not just a selfish motivation to walk wherever they please.
The area below was one of the worse affected by the floods.Water swept down the fells at a rate of knots.They are covered by very short sheep trampled grass.
After the floods it was said that shrubs,trees , and other natural vegetation helps to reduce fast run-off and might help prevent overwhelming flooding.
So even the right- to- roam -wherever- they like brigade would presumably still oppose fencing schemes,knowing this.
Just to show you how bloody- minded these people are, walking up the fells east of Thirlmere is sheer torture and the gradients are thigh- killing.
There is a dedicated diagonal path which in itself is steep but slightly less arduous.
Nobody in their right mind would climb these slopes unless they used the gradient path- although you might if you are a masochist.So people generally don't just wander all over the fells here.North West Water wanted to stop SHEEP roaming here.By fencing some of it off the vegetation would grow back again and the spin- off would be the return of birds and wildlife.At the moment you are more likely to see more birds in your ASDA supermarket car park going to buy a leg of lamb than you will see on these sheep-filled fells.
Even so the right to roam bods objected, even if it was highly unlikely they would ever want to take up this privilege.
Brilliant!
There are some great examples locally where farmers have fenced off areas and planted native trees or allowed natural regrowth.In one case he was advised to do this after a great rush of water ran down the fell and caused thousands of pounds worth of damage.You can still wander at will over miles of fells and enjoy the views in this valley.
I don't see these fenced off areas and think,'How selfish doing that-they have restricted my rights to roam wherever I want to!'- and then clamber over the fence to enjoy my human rights.
The breeding Whinchats love this newly fenced off area by the way.In the past two years I have seen newly fledged birds with their parents on the tree protection tubes ,the fences built around the individual trees and the boundary fence.Prior to the tree planting it was just rough open sheep grazing land.
Incidentally there is a local valley where the land owner has done the same thing.Within the fenced off area I have found breeding Whinchat,Stonechat,Redpoll and a host of other birds.Before that it was sterile sheep grazing land.I would have been lucky to see a Meadow Pipit prior to that!
Occasionally you have to allow a compromise which restricts the rights of the humans to a degree. (It is also the case that the wildlife can't stand up for it's own rights, so some humans have to go and stand up for them against the other humans.)'
A perfect example of this on Scout Scar,the SSSI I mentioned where the authorities kindly erected signs to keep dogs on leads[not just under comtrol] during the bird breeding season.
Over the years more and more dog owners appeared with not just one dog but two or more.It was,over the years, being used more and more,as a dog walking area /dog toilet.
After a while I noticed birds reducing in numbers.[ yes I realise there are other factors but this one, of dog disturbance, is potentially avoidable]They saw it as their right to walk unfettered so whilst they generally stuck to the paths the dogs would run off exploring the surrounding vegetation which round here is unique.It has been allowed to grow naturally with no sheep grazing allowed.
When I asked the authorities to erect the dog lead notices they were gradually ripped off and even before that happened 99% of dog owners just ignored them.
The dog owners do not want their rights restricted by having to hang on to a straining lead -it would spoil their walk.
Knowing,too well, about the selfish gene and human nature, I foretold what would happen to the signs and realised that the owners would just ignore them, but what else can we do and at least make an effort?
One morning I heard an old man shouting 'Toby!','Toby!' looking for his dog which he had lost in the dense vegetation.He had no idea where it was.
He saw my bins and said,'Eh you don't see the birds you used to see up here years ago!' I thought to myself.'I wonder why!'
'Are you in favour of, for example, allowing unrestricted access by humans to tern nesting beach areas in the breeding season?'
says dan the man.
Well if you really care about birds and wildlife and not just yourself, there is no answer to that.
I asked the warden at Foulney Tern reserve if he had any problems with the public disturbing the birds.He said they generally respected their requests and didn't just wander willy- nilly over the island even if they had a right to do so.
The Thirlmere fencing project was opposed by the right to roamers even though they would still have thousands of acres left to trample over.I would have thought some of them even might have some interest in wildlife and not just a selfish motivation to walk wherever they please.
The area below was one of the worse affected by the floods.Water swept down the fells at a rate of knots.They are covered by very short sheep trampled grass.
After the floods it was said that shrubs,trees , and other natural vegetation helps to reduce fast run-off and might help prevent overwhelming flooding.
So even the right- to- roam -wherever- they like brigade would presumably still oppose fencing schemes,knowing this.
Just to show you how bloody- minded these people are, walking up the fells east of Thirlmere is sheer torture and the gradients are thigh- killing.
There is a dedicated diagonal path which in itself is steep but slightly less arduous.
Nobody in their right mind would climb these slopes unless they used the gradient path- although you might if you are a masochist.So people generally don't just wander all over the fells here.North West Water wanted to stop SHEEP roaming here.By fencing some of it off the vegetation would grow back again and the spin- off would be the return of birds and wildlife.At the moment you are more likely to see more birds in your ASDA supermarket car park going to buy a leg of lamb than you will see on these sheep-filled fells.
Even so the right to roam bods objected, even if it was highly unlikely they would ever want to take up this privilege.
Brilliant!
There are some great examples locally where farmers have fenced off areas and planted native trees or allowed natural regrowth.In one case he was advised to do this after a great rush of water ran down the fell and caused thousands of pounds worth of damage.You can still wander at will over miles of fells and enjoy the views in this valley.
I don't see these fenced off areas and think,'How selfish doing that-they have restricted my rights to roam wherever I want to!'- and then clamber over the fence to enjoy my human rights.
The breeding Whinchats love this newly fenced off area by the way.In the past two years I have seen newly fledged birds with their parents on the tree protection tubes ,the fences built around the individual trees and the boundary fence.Prior to the tree planting it was just rough open sheep grazing land.
Incidentally there is a local valley where the land owner has done the same thing.Within the fenced off area I have found breeding Whinchat,Stonechat,Redpoll and a host of other birds.Before that it was sterile sheep grazing land.I would have been lucky to see a Meadow Pipit prior to that!
Last edited:
Not a totally fair comment as it is standard practice in many US national parks to implement local/seasonal closures to areas to protect nesting raptors, etc. This includes parks such as Denali and Yellowstone where hiking is as every bit as popular as in the Lake District. Information is usually given why the closure is in place, detailing the species and its requirements, its scarcity, etc. ... ie protection and public awareness program all in one.
Thus, the view than Ian holds is not that applied in the US.
Paul Longland
Well-known member
The solution is simple. Just let those without half a brain cell wander away to their hearts content, eroding the countryside, letting their dogs kill or frighten away every other living thing. Then when the area becomes a wilderness with no wildlife and there is nothing left for them to look at, chase or shoot then they will hopefully lose interest, go away and nature being what it is it will re-establish itself and we will once again be able enjoy its bounty.
When I say we, I mean of course our great grandchildren as it is going to take generations to repair the damage already being done.
Seriously I cannot understand the pig-headed attitude of some people. go anywhere, do anything and no respect for other peoples enjoyment of the countryside. How would these walkers feel if I decided that I had a right to drive a Chelsea tractor through their back yard for example. Don't even get me started on the grouse are good raptor bad brigade.
The country side should be available for us all to enjoy, and with a little tolerance and acceptance of other peoples point of view there is no reason why that cannot be the case.
I have nothing against dogs and have even had a few. There is no reason why they cannot be kept under proper control. I have missed at least one lifer (Richards pipit) being told "they were here 5 minutes ago but were flushed by a dog that was running loose". However, I do not expect the average dog walker to appreciate my hobby and nor would I expect them to give up their enjoyment of the countryside. There is no reason, with good management and a bit of planning that our national parks cannot cater for all. Why not have a fenced area where people can let their dogs roam without harassing wildlife, whilst at the same time a similar area with restricted access during the ground breeding season? Every one is happy. If you provide a proper facility, then you can crack down on those that do not observe the rules.
When I say we, I mean of course our great grandchildren as it is going to take generations to repair the damage already being done.
Seriously I cannot understand the pig-headed attitude of some people. go anywhere, do anything and no respect for other peoples enjoyment of the countryside. How would these walkers feel if I decided that I had a right to drive a Chelsea tractor through their back yard for example. Don't even get me started on the grouse are good raptor bad brigade.
The country side should be available for us all to enjoy, and with a little tolerance and acceptance of other peoples point of view there is no reason why that cannot be the case.
I have nothing against dogs and have even had a few. There is no reason why they cannot be kept under proper control. I have missed at least one lifer (Richards pipit) being told "they were here 5 minutes ago but were flushed by a dog that was running loose". However, I do not expect the average dog walker to appreciate my hobby and nor would I expect them to give up their enjoyment of the countryside. There is no reason, with good management and a bit of planning that our national parks cannot cater for all. Why not have a fenced area where people can let their dogs roam without harassing wildlife, whilst at the same time a similar area with restricted access during the ground breeding season? Every one is happy. If you provide a proper facility, then you can crack down on those that do not observe the rules.
MTem
Well-known member
I know this Jos, I have hiked in many US National parks, that was not my point - it was a reference to my earlier comment where the polarisation of views is definitely more prevalent in the US (abortion as an example), and where compromise and balance are seen as cowardice in the face of the enemy. If you do not agree with this then go live there for 7 years like I did.
Jasonbirder
Jason-occasional-twitcher
Whilst I think we all knew what
to expect given your posting history...(Is this a forum for people who like birds...or people who dislike dogs?)
I think you lost all credibility when you talked about the "good work" Farmers do as opposed to the "damage" caused by walkers...
I'm pretty sure that if there was less sheep-grazing, less flash-flooding and less poisoning and shooting...the impact of a few hikers wouldn't even be noticed!
No worries, we agree on the point about excessive disturbance and the wisdom of restricting certain access to prevent disturbance, so nothing much to debate from my side.
However ...
Seen quite a bit of this in the UK of late, no?
:-O That looks like a rather typical comment of those with polarised views. Isn't it pretty much the same as "If you don't agree with me, you are not qualified to comment"
PS. I've spent more than a year in the US.
However
...Seen quite a bit of this in the UK of late, no?
:-O That looks like a rather typical comment of those with polarised views. Isn't it pretty much the same as "If you don't agree with me, you are not qualified to comment"
PS. I've spent more than a year in the US.
Last edited:
Talk about taking quotes out of context to make a dubious point Jason!
Actually I don't dislike dogs but I'm not keen on owners who rip down signs politely asking them to keep the their dogs on leads during the bird breeding season.
Some farmers are doing a lot of good work round here even if they are being paid to do so by government grants.
Is that such an incredible thing to say Jason?
I see them planting native trees,fencing off land to encourage natural vegetation,planting hedgerows,maintaining walls round here- its not all doom and gloom. Yes, even the old stone walls are great habitats for all sorts of insect life and surprisingly, the humble toad.The Meadow Pipits,Whinchat Stonechat and Wheatear love them- they use them as perching posts as launching pads when hunting for food.
A group of Tebay farmers were persuaded to fence off large areas of the fells adjacent to the M6 and plant deciduous trees.Within a short space of time not only are the trees growing but also natural vegetation is regenerating because the sheep are no longer munching away day in,day out.If you are ever travelling north on the motorway cast your eyes towards the Howgills just south of the Tebay gap.They have done the same in Borrowdale just opposite on the other side of the M6.
Local farmers have been part of a scheme in creating a huge wetland reserve just down the road.Before it was useless grazing land now you will see hundreds of wildfowl,herons and birds of prey where none were seen before..
Another farmer took up the butterfly habitat scheme I mentioned.It took him months of paperwork and putting the money up first himself.He wasn't going to get paid until he had finished the work.Then some idiots came along and damaged the fence because their rights to roam had been restricted[even though they just had a small diversion to get to go where they wanted].By the way the key suspects in this case weren't walkers or dog owners but most likely mountain bikers.They are the only group whoever go up there these days.
Somebody told me about a tarn locally which was attracting a lot of winter wildfowl.I looked at my out of date map but there was no indication of a stretch of water.
I drove down there and to my amazement there was this huge lake headed by a reed bed area.
Making some enquiries I discovered the local farmer had got fed up with the area because it was always flooding.So he dammed it off and created this whole new tarn.
He told me he loved the sound of the whistling Wigeon and the whole new vista he'd created.
Some local shooters asked if they could shoot there and he told them to clear off- no way did he want the lake disturbed or the birds frightened away.
A few years ago I noticed a semicircle of dense pine wood had been chopped down, in an obscure part of Cumbria.A year later I heard some ducks quacking.I was surprised to find a large pond had been created.Now some reeds have grown and it supports a huge number of dragonflies and insects.Because there is a ready meal of insects Spotted Flycatchers and Common Redstarts breed there- I see them every year now.
When I asked the local farmer[ who maintains a massive Gorse area as an SSSI] who was behind it, he told me a local farmer had created it.He had no idea why he had gone to all this effort, as there was no commercial gain in doing so.
Another farmer told me he had a family of Barn Owls in his barn last year and it was a bit of a pain.He didn't want to disturb them as the young were being reared and he has only got two other outhouses.Nevetheless he not only let them be but also rang a local ringer who came to ring them.
We know all about the damage modern farming methods cause but try and see the positive amongst all the negatives Jason.
If I see something good happening which is benefitting birds and wildlife, even if carried out by the arch enemy, the farmer, then why not say so?They aren't all ogres!
Good old George Monbiot has quite rightly highlighted the bird free zones caused by upland grazing in the Lake District.He even confronted a group of farmers in a meeting in Penrith,brave man that he is.
He was almost lynched for his pains.
No mere keyboard warrior he.No, he gets off his backside and campaigns vigorously on these matters rather than just sniping from behind his laptop.
Because he doesn't spend as much time around here as I do then I'm not sure he is aware of some subtle changes which are taking place in favour of wildlife.Not enough but better than nothing.
Last edited:
MTem
Well-known member
No worries, we agree on the point about excessive disturbance and the wisdom of restricting certain access to prevent disturbance, so nothing much to debate from my side.
However
Seen quite a bit of this in the UK of late, no?
:-O That looks like a rather typical comment of those with polarised views. Isn't it pretty much the same as "If you don't agree with me, you are not qualified to comment"
PS. I've spent more than a year in the US.
Jos,
Did you read what I wrote, or what you think I wrote?
Anyway my sole point is that I think grey is a far better colour on such topics than either black or white. The shade depends on the issue, but I think there is enough space in the Lakes for walkers, climbers, ramblers, farmers AND some areas of restricted access to aid wildlife conservation.
:t:
Similar threads
