Golden eagle eating lamb

[John B (NTS)]

Originally Posted by Adam Cheeseman

You don't mean..................................the Songbird Survival Trust!!!

I doubt it. Even fervent believers of the tosh they peddle would struggle to accept that Golden Eagles are going to be snatching Blue Tits out of nests.

[larachmor]

Originally Posted by John B (NTS)

I doubt it. Even fervent believers of the tosh they peddle would struggle to accept that Golden Eagles are going to be snatching Blue Tits out of nests.

For info - The Lake District eagles (when they were active as a breeding pair) predated Meadow Pipits nests.

[valleyforge]

Originally Posted by RoyW

I see no good reason at all to suspect that this is a photoshopped image, including the way the bird is flying. There is nothing at all to be gained by even suggesting that the photo may not genuinely show what the photographer is quoted as saying it shows (ie. a Golden Eagle carrying a lamb that was not seen to be killed by the eagle).

By all means attack the false claims made by the article(s): The suggestion that these photos prove eagles take live lambs (they sometimes do, but these photos don't prove it). The implication that they are somehow a major threat to the livelihoods of farmers/crofters because they take large numbers of lambs, the obvious agenda that the writer(s) have. And the shoddy journalism, repeating "facts" that they have been given without any attempt to check the accuracy (...including whether they refer to the same species).
Any attempt to discredit the photo (without very good basis), or an attempt to claim that eagles don't take live lambs pretty much plays into the hands of those that want to discredit conservationists views - they may be able to ignore facts that they don't like, but they can't be allowed to 'pick up on' genuine facts that are being ignored/under stated by those on the side of the birds of prey.

You have made some very good points RoyW which I mostly agree with, however I would still maintain that the photo is very much the basis of the story ... without that picture, the article (with all its inaccuracies) would probably not be worth a second glance, far less this discussion thread.

Now, I don't actually care that much what the motivations or agenda might be behind the picture, the article or its timing ... but as a naturalist I do very much care when something is purported to be natural, when it is pretty clear to me that it isn't.

The photographs (links previously within this thread) depict an eagle carrying what is purported to be a lamb ... now on the face of it, whilst I wouldn't question that's probably possible, all my experience of raptor observation, coupled with some understanding of avian anatomy, together with a basic knowledge of the physics of flight ... strongly suggest to me that the photos are NOT natural depictions of an eagle carrying a lamb.

Raptors don't carry prey in the manner depicted, because quite simply they can't.

In each of the photos (previously linked), it seems clear to me that to grasp the 'lamb' in the manner suggested, the eagle must have its legs bent at the 'elbows' (or more correctly, backward folding 'knees'). Either that, or this eagle has implausibly short legs.

As I tried to point out in my previous post, the eagle could not possibly sustain lift with the lamb held so close to its body ... in order to provide lift, wings require the flow of air beneath them to be laminar ... turbulant flow does not provide lift without a considerable amount of applied effort.

Secondly, lifting such a burden with the legs flexed in the manner depicted in each of the photos, would apply such stresses to the muscle/ligament anchorages on the (hollow) legs bones that it would be extemely uncomfortable at best ... and catastrophic at worst.

Raptors typically transport prey (and nest material) with legs extended (muscles relaxed), because that's simply the most comfortable way of carrying something. If you doubt that's the case, why not try to carry your next carrier bag of shopping home from the supermarket with your arms bent at 90 degrees or less, and your wrists horizontal ... you probably won't get too far before it feels that your muscles are being torn from your bones.

A quick look around Google images has provided the following links where you can see just how raptors (not all eagles of course) carry even small prey items ... I haven't the time to do an extensive search, but I'd doubt there will be many examples to be found of anything being carried in the same manner as the 'lamb' in this case:

Google Image Result for http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/19309/wm/pd2194052.jpg

Eagle carrying prey image by beachdogkeleigh on Photobucket

Google Image Result for http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3525135-lg.jpg

Google Image Result for http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f7c051ce16a9.jpg

These are credible images, because they illustrate that leg extension whilst carrying (a variety of) prey items allows not only sufficient clearance to ensure laninar air flow under the wings, but 'anti-roll' attitude control too.

[larachmor]

Originally Posted by valleyforge

......Raptors don't carry prey in the manner depicted, because quite simply they can't.

In each of the photos (previously linked), it seems clear to me that to grasp the 'lamb' in the manner suggested, the eagle must have its legs bent at the 'elbows' (or more correctly, backward folding 'knees'). Either that, or this eagle has implausibly short legs.

As I tried to point out in my previous post, the eagle could not possibly sustain lift with the lamb held so close to its body ... in order to provide lift, wings require the flow of air beneath them to be laminar ... turbulant flow does not provide lift without a considerable amount of applied effort.

I feel that the image depicted in the article is not untypical of an eagle carrying heavy prey, and the fact that the eagle is carrying the lamb close to its body should not be a reason to question its authenticity.
This image below, shows a similar flight profile. It is another from the sequence I shot and featured earlier.
(Apologies for the quality of the image. As before, it is a crop from a scanned slide, but it does I feel illustrate the point).

[RoyW]

Valleyforge, I fully respect the reasoning that you have given for objecting to the newspaper story, and I particularly respect the fact that you have picked out what you believe to be genuine reasons to consider the photo to have been 'manipulated' (including in your earlier posts if I remember correctly).

Originally Posted by valleyforge

The photographs (links previously within this thread) depict an eagle carrying what is purported to be a lamb ... now on the face of it, whilst I wouldn't question that's probably possible, all my experience of raptor observation, coupled with some understanding of avian anatomy, together with a basic knowledge of the physics of flight ... strongly suggest to me that the photos are NOT natural depictions of an eagle carrying a lamb.

Raptors don't carry prey in the manner depicted, because quite simply they can't.

I cannot however agree with your reasoning for believing that the photo does not genuinely show an eagle carrying a lamb (quoted in part above).

While it is true that raptors will frequently, perhaps even usually, carry prey with their legs hanging down, this is certainly not always the case.
Many of the photos that you will find on the net (and elsewhere) show raptors close to the ground at, or very soon after, the point when they first grab the prey they are depicted as carrying. This is certainly the case in the first photo you linked, and appears to be the case in at least the third and fourth as well, which both show raptors near the water/ground.

In addition to larachmor's images, I have been able to find this image of a White-tailed Eagle with a lamb (it doesn't look like a mountain hare to me!) - apparently carried close to the body (although the image isn't sharp):
White-tailed Eagle (scroll down page slightly)

A brief search also found this Red-tailed Hawk holding prey close to its body, and this hawk, with a small bird carried close to the body with just one foot.

When I see Sparrowhawks passing overhead with prey, more often than not they are holding said prey pulled in close to their belly.

We may have to agree to disagree, but I still see nothing wrong with the photo.

Originally Posted by valleyforge

In each of the photos (previously linked), it seems clear to me that to grasp the 'lamb' in the manner suggested, the eagle must have its legs bent at the 'elbows' (or more correctly, backward folding 'knees'). Either that, or this eagle has implausibly short legs.

(Bold highlights added).
As a slight diversion from the thread topic, the correct way to put this to allow an anatomical comparison with humans would be to describe the "elbow" as the angle joint. Birds knees face forwards, like they do in humans, but the knee joint is close to the body and not visible. The visible "leg" below the forward bending joint is equivalent to the human foot (with the tarsal/metatarsal bones fused together), and birds effectively walk on their toes (we think of the toes as being the whole foot).

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by larachmor

I feel that the image depicted in the article is not untypical of an eagle carrying heavy prey, and the fact that the eagle is carrying the lamb close to its body should not be a reason to question its authenticity.

I agree. That's how raptors carry heavy prey! I rarely see raptors carrying prey with their 'legs extended' - as Valleyforge suggests - unless they've just caught it, which coincidentally looks to be the case in all four photo he's linked to!

Incidentally, I'm a graphic designer, I 'photoshop' pics every day. Personally, I see nothing that indicates the two photographs in question have been altered in any way, though the quality is so poor it would be difficult to tell either way. However, since no one seems to be disputing that golden eagles occasionally kill lambs, and no-one has claimed the lamb in the pics has been killed by an eagle, what would be the point in mocking up such a photograph?

Some years ago there was a similar debate on an animal rights forum over a picture of a fox jumping against a fence as it tried to catch a chicken. Some of the forum members claimed that the pic had been altered or even that the fox was stuffed! I'd seen the photograph before in a book (The Fox & the Orchid' if I remember rightly?), looked in the credits at the back of the book, found the photographer's website and posted it on the forum, inviting those members who claimed the photograph was false to contact the photographer himself. Strangely, none of them did . . .

Cheers
Jonathan

[Jonners]

And now the BBC has jumped on the bandwagon with this article. And look who pops up there in the middle of the article - none other than Songbird Survival.

[solus]

I see they are confusing their species again:
"A newspaper ran a spectacular photograph earlier this week of a golden eagle plucking a lamb from a field. Local farmers claimed the photograph was evidence that eagles - which have been reintroduced back into parts of Scotland - are now out of control."
I have added the bold to highlight - the second "eagles" clearly refers to Sea Eagles but who cares, an Eagle's an Eagle!

I don't think the "Eradicated" bit for the former status of many species in the list at the end of the article helps matters - we deliberately "eradicate" something we don't want: hunted/poisoned to extinction/near extinction would be more accurate!

I hope we're not going to hear of even more persecution in the months to come but with articles like this and the widespread ignorance of the public I fear the worst. :-(

[RobinP]

Should Songbird Survival be re-named Raptor Eradication?

[AdeeH]

This is crazy, surely everybody knows that Golden Eagles are raptors and raptors eat meat, why is it a surprise when they do what comes naturally, this newspaper sensationalism is only to sell newspapers not to understand wildlife.
Farmers lost whole flocks of sheep and herds of cattle during the recent man made foot and mouth disaster and they were compensated for this loss (rightly so), why then can’t a simple compensation programme be introduced to help the poorer struggling hill farmer and allow the eagles to, during this very short annual window of opportunity benefit from the culling of a very few lambs each year. This is the real world that we live in......isn’t it?