Moderator: Greg Downing

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Topic Locked  
 First unread post  | 153 posts | 
by DaveC on Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:16 pm
DaveC
Forum Contributor
Posts: 246
Joined: 2 Dec 2003
Location: Ozarks
Hmmm.....feeding eagles for photos.

1. Perfectly legal.
2. Monitored by Fish & Wildlife.
3. Contributes to the economy.
4. Some anti's may have hidden agendas.

Hey, this is just like hunting! :mrgreen:
Topic Locked  

by robert hasty on Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:18 am
User avatar
robert hasty
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3040
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: bristolp.a
Any names on that list which are doing nothing to stop the feedings probably shouldnt be on there anyway. We should probably take down all the traffic lights at all of our intersections to. Burn our homes down to keep warm. We should all pack our vans up and head to homer, feed some eagles and take photos.

Its obvious to me theres just no way to put the **** back in the horse! As for agenda's, keeping wildlife as wild as possible is the only thing i can come up with. All that said, i'm sad to see its a loseing battle for myself in camp minority here and i'm almost sorry i ever voiced my opinion to be honest. Lesson learned!

robert............
Robert Hasty
NSN0075


[size=75]
[i] There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen:[/i][/size]


Last edited by robert hasty on Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Topic Locked  

by Geo on Tue Mar 15, 2005 4:56 am
Geo
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1885
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
..


Last edited by Geo on Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Topic Locked  

by Rich S on Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:37 am
User avatar
Rich S
Lifetime Member
Posts: 3833
Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Location: NH & MI
Member #:00019
robert hasty wrote:... keeping wildlife as wild as possible is the only thing i can come up with.
Robert, I hate to pick on you again but what does it mean for wildlife to be wild? I think that the standard view is that wildlife runs at the sight or approach of humans. But it's not clear to me that such a view of wildlife is appropriate.

In the Galapagos, sea lions and birds and iguanas all basically ignore man. In the national parks of east Africa, lions and elephants and all types of antelopes ignore man. Man is neither a predator nor a source of food. Basically, we're just a movable part of the landscape. Once you move out of the national parks, it's a very, very different story. Man is the predator, even of lions, and it appears that the lions are well aware of that. (Watch a lion move or hide when they see a Maasai!) They're still wild but man has a major impact and the animals behave differently. Just because an animal behaves differently in the presence of man doesn't mean it's not wild. Webster's has a number of definitions of "wild" but the two that appear most appropriate would be "living in a state of nature and not ordinarily tame or domesticated" and "not subject to restraint or regulation." The eagles of Homer certainly fit both definitions.

Perhaps the Galapagos/Africa NP scenario applied to eagles would have them ignore humans altogther - neither approach nor flee - and perhaps that is the best view of "wild." However, given the history of human/eagle interactions, it is not clear how to move in that direction given the other negative impacts that humans have had on eagles.

And Geo, we can get in a bit of a stew even without your contribution! :twisted:

Rich
Topic Locked  

by Cliff Beittel on Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:52 am
Cliff Beittel
Forum Contributor
Posts: 3210
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
robert hasty wrote:Any names on that list which are doing nothing to stop the feedings probably shouldnt be on there anyway. . . .

. . . Lesson learned!
Probably? Robert, I find it interesting (a lesson, if you will) that the dishonesty of the folks leading the drive to ban eagle feeding can be so casually dismissed. Their lying doesn't prove eagle feeding right, of course, but doesn't it give you pause they feel the need to use such tactics, to claim support where there is none? Isn't bearing false witness something that should concern us?

For the record, I've now learned the opponent of eagle feeding with whom I had a polite and pleasant discussion in Homer was not Lee.
[b]Cliff Beittel[/b]
[url]http://www.agpix.com/cliffbeittel[/url]
Topic Locked  

by Michael Brown on Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:23 am
User avatar
Michael Brown
Forum Contributor
Posts: 8196
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Cayce, South Carolina
Sounds to me like these guys up in Alaska have missed their true calling, and should be working in Washington instead.
They would fit right in!!! :mrgreen:


I'd better shut the h ell up now!!! :lol:
[b]Michael Brown
NSN 0056[/b]

[url=http://www.macroartinnature.com/]"Macro Art In Nature" - Website[/url]
Topic Locked  

by Ron Niebrugge on Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:34 am
Ron Niebrugge
Lifetime Member
Posts: 2145
Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Location: Seward, Alaska
Member #:00440
I spent a couple days in Homer last year- the first time there in a couple years, and I must admit I was surprised to see photographers throwing herring to the Eagles in the afternoon. I have made many trips there in years past, and back then when Jean was done, the shooting was done.

I ultimately participated in throwing fish myself – I feel Homer is somewhat of a unique situation since the
Eagles are already regularly feed there; have been feed for many years, and are feed on winter long.

Although I have thrown fish to Eagles in Homer, I haven’t thrown herring to the Eagles in Seward even though it would be easy to create the same situation. Nor have I thrown fish to Eagles in the lower 48.

As a side note, I have also seen Eagles swim large distances after hitting the water – I have seen Eagles electrocuted landing on power poles, and have had friends lose dogs to Eagles – all in Seward where they are not feed – so such incidents by themselves don’t necessarily mean there is a problem. But if it turns out feeding the Eagles in Homer is detrimental to their health, I will be the first to stop.
Topic Locked  

by EGrav on Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:06 pm
User avatar
EGrav
Forum Contributor
Posts: 469
Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Location: USA
I just got back from my first trip to Homer. What an experience!!!

A few observations:

1. The locals I spoke to were all in support of Jean. The most frequent response I got was not to pay attention to the "few whacko's who didn't know what they were talking about" and "didn't have anything better to do."

2. The local people were very friendly. (Not just the hotel, restaurant people, but locals on the beach, in the town, etc)

3. I think that the "Homer issue" has been blown out of proportion by those few with an agenda.

4. I was surprised at the very large number of eagles all around Homer that did not attend Jean's feedings.

5. I want to go back!

Earl Gravois
Topic Locked  

by geoffs on Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:06 pm
geoffs
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1058
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Location: Oregon
In an attempt to get additional information about this subject from an authoritative source, I emailed a friend of mine. This friend and I attended the University of Montana together when we were getting our wildlife biology degrees. I ended up going into the engineering field but John faithfully remained in wildlife biology and today is a staff biologist for the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife Department. In addition, John has been a falconer and rehabilitator of raptors, federally licensed, since his college days. When posed the question of what were the likely consequences of eagle feeding in Homer, this is what John replied to me (just received his answer two days ago):
Regarding feeding eagles, the answer depends on how you frame the question. Eagles, like most wildlife, are opportunistic feeders. If you provide a food source they'll utilize it. Hand outs are an easy fix, compared to the energy it takes to actively search for and secure food. This may be important on an individual level during periods when sources of food are scarce and other environmental stresses are high. Small scale, short term, or sporadic feedings will have relatively limited impact overall. It may help a particular bird "get over the hump" during a difficult time, but the primary benefit is that people have the opportunity to view the birds up close. You can argue that this potentially builds a constituency that values wildlife, and (may) supports efforts to maintain populations and habitat when conflicts with development occur. The problem with providing a sustained source of food is that over time it maintains an artificially high population level. This can be problematic, particularly if that source of food is eliminated later on. In the mid-1980s, Juneau started incinerating garbage; prior to that point there was an open land fill. Bald eagles are very abundant in southeastern Alaska, and the food source provided by the dump artificially boosted the population in the immediate area. I do volunteer work for the Juneau Raptor Center. After they starting burning garbage, we were inundated with eagles with no other problem other than that they were starving. In short, 1) the population was too high, and 2) the birds had grown up dependent on the land fill, and were not experienced enough to make the transition once that source of food had been eliminated. It took several years for the population to come down to "normal" levels. Ironically, the Juneau has recently eliminated garbage incineration due to costs. It's a funny world we live in.
I think the message that John is trying to get across is that there are possible intended and unintended consequences of longterm feeding.

Intended:
1. Help individuals get food in hard times.
2. Give people access to animals and gain an appreciation of them.

Unintended:
1. Artificially raises the numbers of a population.
2. Can cause harm to individuals if feeding is stopped and population must now reduce in number to the environmental carrying capacity.

John is not providing any clearcut answers. He is basically saying that if a feeding program is started it should be continued unless you are willing to accommodate the starvation that could follow when population numbers must naturally reduce. He is also saying that there is a public policy benefit in exposing people to animals otherwise difficult to approach.

So... the answer is gray and not b/w. But I think we all really knew that.
Geoff Shapiro
Topic Locked  

by Heather Forcier on Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:43 pm
User avatar
Heather Forcier
Site Co-Founder
Posts: 8188
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Vermont
Member #:00003
Geoff,

My thanks to you and John for taking the time to respond. I find this information does shed some additional light on the situation.

My impression about what goes on in Homer is that the birds adapt to how much food is being given. It seems that only enough birds stick around to match the food supply, which I heard last reported as around 200. I had even heard that Jean cut back on how much food she's been providing each winter with no ill-effects to the birds, just some relocating during the winter months to obtain food from other sources, and therefore a reduced total population of wintering eagles in Homer.

An interesting note - it is estimated that 80-90% of the published bald eagle photos come from Homer. I think that was an estimation by a pro photographer visiting Jean.

Again, thanks for your time!
[b]NatureScapes.Net Site Co-Founder
[url=http://www.hforcier.com/][u]Website[/u][/url] | [url=http://www.500px.com/heatherforcier/photos][u]500px Gallery[/u][/url] | [url=https://plus.google.com/117191412635501853092/][u]Google+[/u][/url][/b]
Topic Locked  

by geoffs on Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:47 am
geoffs
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1058
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Location: Oregon
Hi Heather,

Your impressions of the Homer eagle populations vis a vis jean's feeding is probably spot on. The real questions that arise from that are:

1. Are those 200 birds, sized over time to the availability of natural food sources + Jean's supplemental food source, when added to the number of eagles in the region that do not come to Jean's for food, go beyond the capacity for the regional environment to support that number?

2. Jean is 80 years old and won't live forever. Will feeding continue beyond her lifetime? If not, is there a plan in place to gradually phase out the feeding so that there would be no sudden dieback of individuals if the area could not support the number of eagles encouraged by the feeding over the years?

It seems to me that the true answer to the first question can only be gotten from a research effort targeted squarely at the Homer eagles. One might be able to extrapolate from other studies (as was mentioned by my friend John about the Juneau garbage dumps) that the population is inflated but this is not a certainty. Furthermore, even if the population were increased as a result of the feedings it is also possible that the local environment hadn't yet reached carrying capacity for the eagles and could absorb the greater numbers.

I think that the second question is the real problem that the local Homer people have to grapple with. Who knows what will be decided on that issue.
Geoff Shapiro
Topic Locked  

by E.J. Peiker on Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:54 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86788
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Pasquale's Red-tailed Hawk that is sitting in water reminded me of a situation where I encountered a Norther Harrier completely under water with the exception of his head - not sure why he was in this position. Along came some drunk golfers and startled the bird and the bird flew right out of the water and took off. Why am I saying this, well I would think that if a Harrier can go from complete submersion to flight, why wouldn't an Eagle be able to lift off with wet wings?
Topic Locked  

by Greg Downing on Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:26 am
User avatar
Greg Downing
Publisher
Posts: 19318
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Member #:00001
E.J. Peiker wrote:Pasquale's Red-tailed Hawk that is sitting in water reminded me of a situation where I encountered a Norther Harrier completely under water with the exception of his head - not sure why he was in this position. Along came some drunk golfers and startled the bird and the bird flew right out of the water and took off. Why am I saying this, well I would think that if a Harrier can go from complete submersion to flight, why wouldn't an Eagle be able to lift off with wet wings?
The story is fabricated. It DID NOT HAPPEN. How can I be sure of this? Because it was originally said to have been my group, until it was later discovered that I was home safe in Maryland. Then the story changed.

The woman is a liar. Period.
Greg Downing
Publisher, NatureScapes.Net
[url=http://www.gdphotography.com/]Visit my website for images, workshops and newsletters![/url]
Topic Locked  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
153 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group